Nasima Bhanu vs The Deputy Commissioner Women and Child Development Department, Kandhaya Bhavan Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Tumkur, The Child Development Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project Andhanaiah Extension Kunigal Tumkur District and Smt. K.R. Jayalakshmi

Anand Byrareddy

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader though has entered appearance, has not filed any statement of objections. The brief facts are as follows:

The petitioner states that the second respondent had invited applications for the selection of Anganawadi Workers of various Wards of Kunigal Town including Ward No. 13 viz., Mahaveer Nagar Anganawadi Centre. The petitioner and two others viz., one Manjula and one K.R. Jayalakshmi had submitted their applications. The application of Manjula was rejected as her Domicile Certificate was found to be invalid. The third respondent had made a representation, according to the petitioner, to the second respondent stating that she was not interested in the appointment and therefore, recommended that the petitioner may he selected as Anganawadi Worker. It transpires that the respondent authorities had acted upon the said representation and the petitioner was appointed as Anganawadi Worker. When she was thus working, it transpires that the third respondent had made a presentation again to the respondent-authorities to disown any representation made earlier to the effect that she was not interested in the employment and in that background, it transpires that the first respondent had unilaterally passed an order cancelling the selection of the petitioner. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court.

Apparently, in the first instance, this Court had granted an ad-interim order of stay. It has continued to operate and the petitioner having had the benefit of the interim order has continued to function as an Anganawadi Worker till date.

The learned Government Pleader, though has not filed any statement of objections, would submit that apparently, the petitioner was not heard at the enquiry that may have been conducted by the respondent-authorities in holding that the representation said to have been made by the third respondent to the effect that she was not interested in her employment, as being a forged document, at the instance of the petitioner, and therefore, he would submit chat there cannot be any objection, if the matter is re-considered while affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, though the learned Counsel for the petitioner would seek to assert other circumstances to indicate that the third respondent has 310 merit in her claim, it is a matter to be dealt with by the respondent-authorities. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner or the third respondent, the matter is remitted to the respondent-authorities to reconsider the allegations as to the representation made on behalf of the third respondent as having been forged by the petitioner and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing and to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from her position as Anganawadi Worker, subject to the result of findings that may be arrived at pursuant to a rehearing, as already stated. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. As a matter of form. Annexure ''D stands quashed, subject to the result of further proceedings.