UPMA SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come before this Court by way of filing present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ventilating her grievance against the order dated 24-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, respondent No. 1, by which revision of one Smt. Sadhna Singh, the original respondent No. 4 filed against the order dated 18-11-2002 passed by the Collector, Rewa has been allowed and the said original respondent No. 4 was permitted to continue on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center Gurh within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Uparwar, District Rewa, contending that the Collector, Rewa was apprised of the fact that the petitioner was rightly selected being a local resident of the area under the scheme of the State Government, and an order of appointment was to be issued in her respect. However, the resolution which was rightly sent by the Gram Panchayat Uparwar, was interfered by the authorities and though the name of the original respondent No. 4 was not included in the Panel so prepared by the Gram Panchayat, yet the order of appointment was issued in her favour. When an enquiry was conducted in an Appeal filed by the petitioner, by the Collector this fact was found that the original respondent No. 4 was not the local resident of village Gurh, where the Anganwadi was to be opened and, therefore, according to the scheme made by the State Government, she was not entitled to be appointed on the said post. After holding such enquiry and obtaining reports, the order of appointment of original respondent No. 4 was set aside and direction was given to appoint the present petitioner. Pursuance to this order, the petitioner was appointed on 28-12-2002 as Anganwadi Worker at Gurh and she started working but because of the order passed by the respondent No. 1 in the revision of original respondent No. 4 on 24-5-2004, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and the respondent No. 4 was permitted to continue on the post of Anganwadi Worker. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4 continued on the post till her death and after her death fresh proceedings were initiated for recruitment. These facts were brought to the notice of this Court by making an application LA. No. 6928/2009 by which the petitioner has sought an amendment in the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that since, respondent No. 4 was not to be permitted to continue in the employment because of the fact that her selection was illegal, the order passed by the Commissioner is to be quashed. The order of the Collector is to be given stamp of approval by this Court and consequent to this, the person who has been appointed through fresh selection is required to be removed and the petitioner is entitled to be continued on the post of Anganwadi Worker.

(2.) The respondents were served and a return was filed by the original respondent No. 4 while she was alive through her counsel. The proceedings which were subsequently initiated were sought to be challenged by way of amendment in the writ petition by the petitioner. The person who was selected subsequent to the death of original respondent No. 4 on the very same post came before this Court by way of filing an application for seeking intervention to oppose the claim made by the petitioner. All these aspects have been taken note of in the order sheets and the respondent/State was specifically directed to file a return. However, it appears that the respondent/State was not willing to file any return and despite the orders of this Court has not produced any original record of selection held in the year 2000. This Court therefore, was left with no option but to hear the matter on the basis of whatever documents are available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the intervener vehemently contended that since, the original respondent No. 4 has died, the petition which was filed against her appointment and against the order of the Commissioner, respondent No. 1, is abated. The effect of the death of original respondent No. 4, according to the learned counsel for the intervener/respondent No. 7 is that nothing is to be adjudicated and the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the intervener has been properly selected against the vacancy created on account of death of original respondent No. 4 and since, she is working on the post, no adverse order with respect to such appointment of the respondent No. 7 could be passed by this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner could have file an appeal against the order of appointment of intervener/respondent No. 7 before the competent authority but this too has not been done. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count as well.