Remanded

Vijay Laxmi Devi v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Uttarakhand HC18 Oct 2022WPSS/800/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court took steps to ensure justice was met by setting aside the Appellate Committee's order. The petitioner, a selection candidate, challenged the appointment of another individual based on alleged non-compliance with Below Poverty Line (BPL) norms.

What did the court decide?

The writ applications were disposed of with a directive to remand the matter to the Appellate Committee for reconsideration.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPSS No. 800 of 2020
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel
for the petitioner.

Mr.
N.P.
Sah,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for
respondent no. 5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
Petitioner participated in a selection
for appointment as Aaganwari Karyakatri

in
Village
Rano,
District
Chamoli.
However, in the said selection Smt. Neeta
Devi
(respondent
no.
5
herein)
was
selected and appointed. Petitioner made a
complaint that respondent no. 5 does not
belong
to
Below
Poverty
Line
(BPL)
category, therefore, she could not have
been appointed in terms of Government
Policy.
Petitioner’s
complaint
was
considered and rejected by the Appellate
Committee by holding that respondent no.
5 was identified as member belonging to
BPL category and she has also been issued
an identity card by the Block Development

Officer. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner
has approached this Court challenging the
appointment letter issued in favour of
respondent no. 5, on 01.06.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the Appellate Committee
has overlooked the relevant material and
has rejected petitioner’s complaint on
extraneous fact. He further points out that
Block Development Officer, Block Pokhari,
Chamoli had issued a letter to the Chief
Development Officer on 13.09.2020,
wherein he has admitted that BPL Identity
Card was mistakenly issued to respondent
no. 5. He, thus submits that decision
taken by Appellate Committee needs
reconsideration, as this vital aspect has
been ignored at the time of considering
petitioner’s representation.
Since the rejection order passed by
the Appellate Committee dated
28.05.2020 is silent on this aspect of the
matter, therefore, this Court thinks that
ends of justice would be met if the matter
is remitted back to the Appellate
Committee to reconsider petitioner’s
complaint in the light of the letter issued
by Block Development Officer on
13.09.2020, which is on record as

Officer. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner

has approached this Court challenging the

appointment letter issued in favour of

respondent no. 5, on 01.06.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that the Appellate Committee

has overlooked the relevant material and

has rejected petitioner’s complaint on

extraneous fact. He further points out that

Block Development Officer, Block Pokhari,

Chamoli had issued a letter to the Chief

Development
Officer
on
13.09.2020,

wherein he has admitted that BPL Identity

Card was mistakenly issued to respondent

no. 5. He, thus submits that decision

taken
by
Appellate
Committee
needs

reconsideration, as this vital aspect has

been ignored at the time of considering

petitioner’s representation.

Since the rejection order passed by

the
Appellate
Committee
dated

28.05.2020 is silent on this aspect of the

matter, therefore, this Court thinks that

ends of justice would be met if the matter

is
remitted
back
to
the
Appellate

Committee
to
reconsider
petitioner’s

complaint in the light of the letter issued

by
Block
Development
Officer
on

13.09.2020,
which
is
on
record
as

Annexure-1	to the rejoinder affidavit filed
in response	to counter affidavit filed on
behalf of res The Ap	pondent nos. 2 to 4. pellate Committee shall revisit
the issue an	d pass appropriate order, as
per law, aft	er hearing both the parties,
within six	weeks from the date of
presentation Till final deci	of certified copy of this order. sion is taken by the Appellate
Committee, continue as	respondent no. 5 shall Aaganwari Karyakatri and
shall also be With t petition stan Aswal	paid due remuneration. he aforesaid direction, writ ds disposed of. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 18.10.2022

Annexure-1

to the rejoinder affidavit filed

in response

to counter affidavit filed on

behalf of res
The Ap

pondent nos. 2 to 4.
pellate Committee shall revisit

the issue an

d pass appropriate order, as

per law, aft

er hearing both the parties,

within
six

weeks
from
the
date
of

presentation
Till final deci

of certified copy of this order.
sion is taken by the Appellate

Committee,
continue as

respondent
no.
5
shall
Aaganwari Karyakatri and

shall also be
With t
petition stan
Aswal

paid due remuneration.
he aforesaid direction, writ
ds disposed of.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
18.10.2022

Vijay Laxmi Devi v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Laxmi Devi v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

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

Smt.Rafikan Vs Vijay Arora

Poonam Bora Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jashod Singh Vs Union of India

Rajni Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakeshwar Prasad Vs Ramesh

Swami Prakashanand Vs Dheeraj Tomar