Allahabad High Court
YASHODHARA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The Court held that there was no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Yashodhara Devi, challenged the cancellation of her appointment as Anganwadi Karyakartri after a fresh inquiry re‑classified her from BPL to APL. Initially appointed in 2011 based on a BPL certificate, a subsequent inquiry alleged she did not belong to the BPL category, leading to her removal and replacement by another candidate. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a fresh consideration of her representation, which the High Court directed the authorities to conduct. A second inquiry by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM) examined income certificates and concluded that the petitioner’s financial status was better than that of the replacement, confirming the replacement’s eligibility. The District Magistrate affirmed the replacement’s appointment and rejected the petitioner’s representation. The Court found no illegality in the SDM’s inquiry or the District Magistrate’s order and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the fresh inquiry conducted by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and the subsequent order of the District Magistrate cancelling the petitioner’s appointment were legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner’s representation for reconsideration should be entertained despite the prior cancellation.
Subjects
- Anganwadi recruitment
- BPL/APL classification
- reservation
- administrative inquiry
- appointment cancellation
- writ petition
- district magistrate order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 31108 of 2014
Yashodhara Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kaushik, Gaurav Sharan
Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Parmeshwar Yadav
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri Govind Sharan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Dilip Kesarwani, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State respondents. None is present on
behalf of the respondent no. 5.
2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated
22.7.2014 whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner herein
was rejected.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in the year 2011 a selection
committee was constituted to select the Anganwadi Karyakartri for area
Sadar, Maharajganj, District Maharajganj. Pursuant to this, the petitioner,
Respondent Number 5, along with other applicants have applied. On the
basis of the applications submitted by the applicants, a merit list was
prepared and initially the name of the petitioner was shown at serial
number 12 under APL category. The objections were raised by the
petitioner to the said report. Inquiry was later conducted and the petitioner
was shown under the BPL category and consequently she was appointed
as Anganwadi Karyakartri on 6-7-2011. Subsequently, on complaint
submitted by respondent no. 5 that the petitioner does not belong to BPL
category as claimed by her. A fresh inquiry was conducted and a report
was submitted on 24.7.2011 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner
belong to the APL category. On the basis of the said report, vide order
dated 13.4.2011, the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakartri
was cancelled and in her place, respondent no. 5 was selected and
appointed as Anganwadi Karyakartri. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
WRIA No. 31108 of 2014
2
herein has approached this court by filing the writ petition no. 49487 of
2012, Yashodhara Devi versus State of U.P. and others. The said writ
petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 1.10.2012 directing the
respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the
claim of the petitioner afresh.
4. In such view of the matter, the respondents have conducted a fresh
inquiry through SDM concerned and a detailed report was submitted on
8.2.2014. In the said report, it has been observed that the financial status
of the respondent no. 5 is better as comparative to the financial status of
respondent no. 5. In the said report, the SDM has also verified the
income certificates issued to the petitioner on 4.4.2011 and to the
respondent no. 5 on 28.3.2011, wherein the income of the petitioner was
shown as Rs. 21,600 per annum whereas the income of the respondent no.
5 was noted to be Rs.18,000 per annum and both the income certificates
have been found to be true. In such circumstances, the District Magistrate
has observed that the respondent no. 5, on the basis of the said income
certificate has poor financial condition and was below poverty line,
belonging to the Scheduled Caste candidate. Therefore, her appointment
has been affirmed and the representation of the petitioner herein has been
rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality in
the fresh inquiry conducted by the S.D.M. on the basis of which the
District Magistrate has passed the order impugned in this writ petition.
Otherwise also from perusal of the record, it is apparent that in the instant
matter a detailed inquiry has been conducted by the S.D.M. and on the
basis of the inquiry report dated 8.2.2014 the District Magistrate has
passed the impugned order after considering the entire materials available
on record.
5. In view of the above, this Court does not find illegality in the impugned
order. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 5, 2026
o.k.
Digitally signed by :-
OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…