Vineet Saran - (1.) -In response to an advertisement issued by the respondents for appointment of Aanganwari Karyakatri for the village in question, the petitioner as well as other candidates had applied. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, in terms of the Government order dated 16.12.2003, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment and consequently by order dated 25.8.2006, the petitioner was given appointment as Aanganwari Karyakatri. By the impugned order dated 23.11.2006, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the income certificate of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and that it appears to be fabricated. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed merely on conjectures and surmises and without there being any positive basis of arriving at the said conclusion. It has further been submitted that there was no complaint with regard to the income certificate of the petitioner and that no enquiry was ever got conducted in that regard. It has further been submitted that the enquiry, if any, was got conducted ex parte without any notice to the petitioner, which was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned standing counsel has, however, submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the enquiry which was got conducted on the complaints filed by several persons and as such the impugned order is fully justified.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the order impugned in this writ petition deserves to be set aside. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that prior to the passing of the impugned order, no opportunity was ever given to the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that in case if a right has accrued in favour of a person, the same can be withdrawn only in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the person concerned. In paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the writ petition, it has categorically been stated that no opportunity was given to the petitioner at the time of the conduct of the alleged enquiry; nor any notice or opportunity of hearing was ever given prior to the passing of the impugned order; and that the impugned order has been passed for mala fide reasons only to accommodate certain persons of the choice of the respondents.;