Allahabad High Court
KAVITA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The order dated 10‑02‑2026 is quashed and the petitioner is to be given a fresh hearing before any appointment decision is made.
Summary
The petitioner, Kavita Devi, challenged the order dated 10‑02‑2026 of the District Programme Officer, Ballia, which rejected her claim for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri. She argued that the earlier appointment of respondent No.3, Pallavi Prajapati, was cancelled and that, being second on the merit list, she was entitled to consideration, and that Clause 11(V) of the Government Order dated 31‑03‑2023 should not apply. The petitioner further contended that the appointment of respondent No.3 was based on forged documents and was therefore void ab initio. The Court observed that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's appointment was passed without providing a hearing, thereby violating natural justice.
- Whether Clause 11(V) of the Government Order dated 31‑03‑2023 bars the petitioner’s claim for appointment.
- Whether the appointment of respondent No.3 on forged documents is void ab initio and affects the petitioner’s right to consideration.
Subjects
- appointment
- Anganwadi Karyakatri
- writ petition
- quashing order
- natural justice
- hearing
- forged documents
- merit list
- government order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7299 of 2026
Kavita Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shagun K. Saran
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. The order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the District Programme
Officer, Ballia/respondent no.2 by which the claim of the petitioner for
appointment on Anganwadi Karyakatri was rejected is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
2. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that once the person
selected namely respondent no.3-Smt. Pallavi Prajapati on the
aforesaid post and her appointment has been cancelled, the
petitioner being second in merit list is entitled for consideration of her
case for appointment on the aforesaid post. It is further argued that
Clause 11(V) of the Government Order dated 31.03.2023 will not
apply in the facts and circumstances of the case hence petitioner is
entitled for consideration of his case for appointment on the post of
Anganwadi Karyakatri. It is further argued by counsel for the
petitioner that appointment of respondent no.3 was made on the
basis of the forged documents hence same is ab initio and the same
may be treated no appointment in the eyes of law.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present writ
petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
5. Since the order impugned has been passed without providing any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, order dated 10.02.2026
passed by the District Programme Officer, Ballia/respondent no.2 is
WRIA No. 7299 of 2026
2
liable to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed.
6. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to
pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order impugned will be
subject to final outcome of fresh order.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 14, 2026
Pramod Tripathi
Digitally signed by :-
PRAKASH PADIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…