JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who represents Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Sri Khurshid Alam has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 4. 2. Under challenge is an order dated 22nd May, 2007, passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Karyakarti in Village Panchayat Dhamauli, Block Laar, District Deoria. 3. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was formally appointed as Anganbari Karyakarti after following due procedure on 8/11.12.2006. She continued to work as Anganbari Karyakarti and received her remuneration from Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. A Writ Petition No. 6147 of 2007 was preferred by Smt. Arati Devi, a Scheduled Caste candidate, Respondent No. 4 herein, challenging the appointment of the petitioner. As per learned Counsel for Smt. Arati Devi-Respondent No. 4, she was the only scheduled caste candidate in the village and since the post was reserved for the scheduled caste category, she ought to have been engaged as Anganbari Karyakarti. This Court vide judgment and order dated 6.2.2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 6147 of 2007, Smt. Arati Devi v. State of U.P., had directed the District Magistrate, Deoria to look into the matter and dispose of the representation submitted by Smt. Arati Devi. Accordingly, vide order dated 8.4.2007, the District Magistrate, Deoria, after going through the record and hearing the parties, has held that the appointment of Smt. Savita Devi-petitioner in this writ petition, was legal and valid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that all of a sudden the impugned order dated 22nd May was passed altering the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate on 8.4.2007 in violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that all of a sudden the impugned order dated 22nd May was passed altering the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate on 8.4.2007 in violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. The District Magistrate, Deoria on 8.4.2007 has passed the following order : ^^fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 6147@07 Jherh vkjrh nsoh cuke mÙkj iznsk jkT; ,oa vU;] esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vknsk fnukad 6-2-2007 ds Øe esa vkjrh nsoh ds izR;kosnu fnukad 21-2-2007 dk fuLrkj.kA xzke iapk;r èkekSyh fodkl [k.M ykj] tuin nsofj;k esa vuqlwfpr tkfr gsrq vkjrh vkaxuckM+h dk;Zd=h in ds lkis{k vkefU=r vkosnui= ds fo:) vuqlwfpr tkfr dh fdlh vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu i= izLrqr ugha fd;k Fkk] vukjf{kr Js.kh dh Jherh lfork ik.Ms; iRuh dsljh uUnu ik.Ms; dk ek= vkosnu izkIr gqvk Fkk fdUrq vkj{k.k ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k buds vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA vkjf{kr Js.kh ds fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu i= tek u fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa iwjs fodkl [k.M esa vuqlwfpr tkfr dk dksVk iw.kZ u gksus ds dkj.k dk;Zfgr esa xzke izèkku ds vuqjksèk ij mDr xzke iapk;r ds vkaxuckM+h dk;Zd=h in dk fu;ekuqlkj vukjf{kr Js.kh esa ifjofrZr dj fn;k x;kA cy fodkl ifj;kstuk vfèkdkjh ykj ds i= la[;k&151 fnukad 2-12-2006 }kjk vkj{k.k ifjorZu dh fLFkfr ls mDr xzke iapk;r ds xzke iz/kku dks voxr djkrs gq, xzke esa izpkj izlkj dj vU; ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vkosnu djokus ds fy, funsZfkr fd;k x;kA iqu% Jherh lfork ik.Ms; us gh dk;Zd=h in gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k rFkk xzke izèkku us fyf[kr :i ls voxr djk;k fd xzke iapk;r èkekSyh esa dk;Zd=h in gsrq ,d ek= vkosnu i= Jherh lfork ik.Ms; dk izkIr gqvk gS vU; fdlh dk vkosnu i= mUgsa izkIr ugha gqvk gSA dk;kZy; esa Hkh dksbZ nwljk vkosnu i= ugha izkIr gqvk FkkA vr,ao fu;ekuqlkj Jherh lfork ik.Ms; dks vkaxuckMh dk;Zd=h in ij p;fur dj fu;qfDr vknsk fuxZr dj fn;k x;kA Jherh lfork ik.Ms; dh dk;Zd=h in ij fu;qfDr ds fojksèk esa Jherh vkjrh nsoh }kjk ek- mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk ij fnukad 6-2-2007 dks bl vkk; dk vknsk ikfjr fd;k x;k fd ;kph ftyk eftLVªsV ds le{k izR;kosnu izLrqr djsa rFkk ftyk eftLVªsV ;Fkk vko;d lEcfUèkr i{kksa dks lqudj ;qfDr;qDr vknsk tkjh djsaA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vknsk ds Øe esa ;kph Jherh vkjrh nsoh us fnukad 23-2-2007 dks viuk izR;kosnu izLrqr fd;kA izR;kosnu fuLrkj.k gsrq lEcfUèkr i=koyh dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ;kph us vius izR;kosnu esa fnukad 4-7-2006 dks vkaxuckMh dk;Zd=h in gsrq vkosnu i= tek djus dk mYys[k fd;k gSA lEcfUèkr i=koyh ds ijh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd vkosnu i= tek fd;s tkus dh vfUre frfFk fnukad 15-7-2006 rd fuèkkZfjr Fkh rFkk vkosnu djus okyh lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dk;kZy; }kjk izkfIr jlhn iznku dh xbZ FkhA dk;kZy; i= la[;k 3200&01@ft0 dk0@06&07 fnukad 24-3-2007 }kjk iathd`r Mkd ls ;kph o izfroknh la[;k 5 Jherh lfork ik.Ms; dks fnukad 3-4-2007 dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;k] ijUrq ;kph vkjrh nsoh Lo;a mifLFkr u gksdj muds ifr Jh lqjsk izlkn mifLFkr gq,A Jherh vkjrh nsoh dks mifLFkr gksus ds ekSf[kd funsZk Hkh fn, x;s fdUrq iqu% Jherh vkjrh nsoh ds ifr gh gekjs lEeq[k mifLFkr gq,A muds }kjk u rks vkjrh nsoh dks mifLFkr djk;k x;k vkSj u gh vkosnu i= tek djus dh jlhn izLrqr dh xbZA iqu% dk;kZy; i= la[;k 149&21 fnukad 24-4-2007 }kjk Jherh vkjrh dks fnukad 3-5-2007 dks iwokZUg 11-00 cts mifLFkr gksus gsrq funsZfkr fd;k x;k mDr frfFk dks Jherh vkjrh nsoh mifLFkr gqbZ vuqkhyu ls Li"V gqvk fd Jherh vkjrh }kjk ftyk dk;ZØe vfèkdkjh ds lEeq[k iwoZ esa dHkh mDr vkk; dh fkdk;r dh xbZ Fkh ftl ij ftyk dk;ZØe vfèkdkjh us lEcfUèkr xzke izèkku ,oa Jherh vkjrh nsoh dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus gsrq cqyk;k FkkA fdUrq rRle; Jherh vkjrh nsoh mifLFkr ugha gqbZ FkhA tcfd xzke izèkku }kjk Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj bl vkk; dk c;ku fn;k x;k Fkk fd vuqlwfpr tkfr gsrq ik= vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k dk;kZy; esa muds }kjk vkj{k.k ifjorZu dk vuqjksèk fd;k x;k FkkA Jherh vkjrh nsoh }kjk dHkh Hkh dksbZ vkosnu i= tek ugha fd;k x;kA bl izdkj ;kph }kjk vkaxuckMh dk;Zd=h in gsrq vkosnu u fd;s tkus dh iqf"V gksrh gSA kkldh; dk;Zfgr esa vkaxuckMh dk;Zd=h in ij Jherh lfork ik.Ms; dk p;u@fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj dh x;h gSA fu"d"kZ mDr in ds vkyksd esa Jherh vkjrh nsoh dk izR;kosnu cyghu@rF;foghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr djrs gq, ,rn}kjk fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Jherh lfork ik.Ms; vkaxuckMh dk;Zd=h in ij ;Fkkor dk;Z djrh jgsaxhA ¼,l0 oh0 ,l0 lHkkln½ ftykfèkdkjh] nsofj;kA 5. After disposal of the representation by a detailed reasoned and speaking order in furtherance of this Court’s order, it appears that Smt. Arati Devi again appeared before the District Magistrate, Deoria on 17.5.2007. She had reiterated her stand before the District Magistrate again. This time, the District Magistrate has taken a turn around and indicated in the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2007 that Smt. Arati Devi was a suitable candidate for selection and the post was reserved for scheduled caste category candidate. The District Magistrate has cancelled the appointment of Smt. Savita Devi which was made on 8/11th December, 2006 and a de novo selection was ordered to be made. 6. Sri Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel for Smt. Arati Devi has resisted the writ petition and laid much emphasis on the earlier stand taken by Smt. Arati Devi that the post was reserved for scheduled caste category candidate and Smt. Arati Devi was the only suitable and eligible candidate for engagement as Anganbari Karyakarti against the said post. There were serious infirmities in the selection and engagement process which was held in December, 2006. The subsequent order dated 22nd May, 2007 was just and proper. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to Smt. Savita Devi whose appointment as Anganbari Karyakarti was cancelled after a substantial period of time. She had put in a substantial period in service as Anganbari Karyakarti. 9. It appears from the record that at the relevant time when the selection process took place, the post in question was meant for the general category candidate. No one had raised any objection at the time of selection and appointment/recruitment regarding said post and the due procedure followed. The District Magistrate in its earlier order dated 8/11th December, 2006 did not find any fault in the procedure followed for engaging Anganbari Karyakarti, rather he has held that the selection was legal and valid. Moreover, being the only scheduled caste candidate or being the scheduled caste candidate in the Village does not create any statutory right in favour of a person that she alone could be appointed on a particular post. Moreover, being the only scheduled caste candidate or being the scheduled caste candidate in the Village does not create any statutory right in favour of a person that she alone could be appointed on a particular post. A candidate can claim right to be considered for appointment or engagement, but not a right to be appointed on a particular post. What has to be judicially scrutinised is the event which took place in December, 2006 when the process of recruitment was made. At the instance of an interested party, administrative exercise was already carried out which had resulted in order dated 8.4.2007. If it is a case of administrative review of an administrative action, there appears to be no discovery of any fresh material or new material which warranted the District Magistrate to alter a decision taken earlier after hearing the parties and going through the record. The learned Counsel for Smt. Arati Devi-Respondent No. 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel have failed to produce any such material or event which could justify the review of the administrative action which has resulted in affecting the rights of Smt. Savita Devi, the petitioner, who was appointed on 8/11th December, 2006 and received remuneration. Moreover, this Court has also noted that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as Smt. Savita Devi, whose rights were going to be affected, was neither heard before passing of the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2007 nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded. 10. My view finds support from the judgments reported in (2007) 1 UPLBEC 192, Union of India and others v. Bikash Kuana; (2004) 2 SCC 76 , Ramarao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and others and 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 330, Shravan Kumar Jha and others v. State of Bihar and others. 11. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22nd May, 2007, passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria is quashed. 12. No order as to cost. ————