Dismissed

Smt. Kavita Devi v. Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018SPLA/725/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal challenging dismissal of a writ petition regarding the appellant's termination from service as an Anganwadi Karyakatri. The court found the appointment had been accorded in the wrong category and that the discrepancy in honorarium did not justify reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed, but the cost imposed on the appellant was set aside, with a suggestion to sympathetically conside

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on appellant by single bench set aside; direction to consider sympathetic retention as non-matriculate.

Smt. Kavita Devi Vs Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 725 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Kavita Devi Respondent :- Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar Yadav, Jigyasa Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ - A No. 14795 of 2018. Under the order aforesaid, learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant-petitioner giving challenge to her termination from service.

¶6

In brief factual matrix of the case is that Anu Sachiv, Government of Uttar Pradesh under a communication letter dated 22.02.2003 conveyed availability of vacancies on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatries under different categories. As per the details given in the communication letter dated 22.02.2003, the respondents had posts of Anganwadi Karyakatries of six kinds including non matriculate, non matriculate with experience of five years, non matriculate with experience of ten years, matriculate, matriculate with experience of five years and matriculate with experience of ten years with honorarium of Rs.438, Rs.469, Rs.500, Rs. 500/-, Rs.531/- and Rs.563/- respectively.

¶7

In pursuance to the applications called for, the appellantpetitioner submitted an application to be considered for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri on 03.07.1997. On basis of application aforesaid, the appointment was accorded to her on 11.09.1997. At the time of appointment appellant- petitioner received honorarium in a tune of Rs.438/- per month and the same was revised time to time.

¶8

It appears that some complaint was made by some person in the year 2017-18 before the competent authority of the department. The Child Development Project Officer, acting upon the said complaint, directed to enquire about the genuineness of the matriculation/high school certificate said to be filed by the appellant-petitioner while seeking employment. The matter was enquired and after availing an explanation from the appellant-petitioner, she was discontinued from service under an order dated 16.05.2018.

¶9

Aggrieved by order dated 16.05.2018, appellant-petitioner preferred petition for writ, that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned. Learned single Bench after going through the record arrived at the conclusion that in the list of selected incumbent name of appellant -petitioner

¶10

appeared at serial no.65 by showing her as a person having qualification of High School and further she was declared entitled to have honorarium of Rs.500/- per month. In the order of appointment also learned single Bench noticed that the appointment was given to the appellant-petitioner by treating her as an incumbent having High School and as such honorarium of Rs.500/- per month was allowed.

¶11

In appeal, argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate that since inception the honorarium paid to the appellant-petitioner was at the rate of Rs.438/- per month and even on revision thereof a corresponding amount of honorarium was paid. This fact as per learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is sufficient to establish that appointment was sought by the appellant-petitioner only in the category of "non matriculate".

¶12

On going through the entire record, we do not find any merit with the argument advanced.

¶13

From perusal of the application form submitted by the appellant-petitioner in the prescribed format while seeking appointment in the year 2003 discloses her qualification as High School. Learned counsel disputed this fact by submitting that there was some interpolation made by some other person.

¶14

Be that as it may, a perusal of the order of appointment and the select list in quite unambiguous terms, discloses that the appointment was accorded to the appellantpetitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. This honorarium could have been allowed only if the appellantpetitioner would have disclosed her as a person having High School/matriculation or a person with non matriculate having ten years experience. The appellant-petitioner, as a matter of fact, does not fall in either of categories referred above.

¶15

So far as issue with regard to acceptance of honorarium at the rate of Rs.438/- per month and corresponding thereto is concerned, we would like to state that same shall not change the nature of appointment accorded as per the select list and the order of appointment. Appellantpetitioner in last 15 years never made any effort to point out the error, if any, about her placement in the select list and also in the order of appointment with honorarium of Rs.500/- per month. In entirety the facts available on record clearly indicates that the appointment accorded to the appellant-petitioner was not correct and as such the same was rightly discontinued. Learned single Bench as such has not committed any error that may warrant interference in our appellate jurisdiction. However, single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant-petitioner, which in our

¶16

considered opinion deserves to be made easy.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but the cost imposed is made easy. While parting with the case, we deem it appropriate to observe that the appellant-petitioner was in service of respondents for about fifteen years and if there is any possibility to continue her in service as a person non matriculate then that shall be considered sympathetically by the authority competent.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.8.2018 Prajapati

¶19

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J] [Govind Mathur, J]

Smt. Kavita Devi v. Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavita Devi v. Dist. Magistrate Bulandshahr and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chandra and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Kumar Vs District Inspector of Schools and Another

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Umesh Prasad Vs State of U P and 2 Others

U.P. Pariyojna Prabandhak U.P. State Bridge Corporation and 4 Ors. Vs Jai Ram Yadav

Jahan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.