Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1772 (ALL)

Madhuri Pandey v. State of U. P.

2016-05-09

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. 1. The petitioner is a candidate for the appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker. An advertisement was issued sometimes in the year 2007 for the employment of Anganwadi Worker in Gram Sabha Karo, Block Sohawan, Ballia. There were two posts; one was reserved for the Scheduled Caste and another for Unreserved category. 2. The petitioner and the fourth respondent both had applied against unreserved category post. The petitioner contends that ignoring her claim the fourth respondent was selected as an Anganwadi Worker. It is stated that since the petitioner worked for the period in between 2001 and 2007 on the post of Sahayika and was senior to the fourth respondent, she challenged the promotion of the fourth respondent, whereupon the promotion of the fourth respondent was cancelled vide order dated 28th March, 2011. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the fourth respondent preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23673 of 2011 (Smt. Raj Kumari Devi v. State of U.P. & others), which was disposed of by this Court on 20th February, 2014 by issuing a direction upon the respondents to consider her grievance. In compliance thereof the impugned order has been passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Sohawan, Ballia on 22nd August, 2014. 4. It is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to produce any document to indicate that she has worked as a Sahayika. The said finding reads as under: **Jherh ek/kqjh ik.Ms; }kjk lgkf;dk in ij dk;Zjr jgus dk dksbZ vfHkys[k izLrqr u djus ds dkj.k lgkf;dk gsrq vkjf{kr dk;Zd=h in ij ;kph Jherh jktdqekjh nsoh ds lkFk rqyukRed leh{kk fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha Fkk A**" 5. On the aforesaid ground the order cancelling the appointment of the fourth respondent, has been recalled and she has been allowed to resume her duties as Anganwadi Worker. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner has failed to produce any document, is incorrect, as also in the writ petition there is no pleading that the said finding is perverse or without any evidence. 7. It is a trite law that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court does not act as an appellate authority. 7. It is a trite law that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court does not act as an appellate authority. Even in the wrong orders the Courts do not interfere unless there is a miscarriage of justice or the order has been passed against any statutory provision. Reference may be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. and another v. Johri Mal, AIR 2004 SC 3800 , wherein the Court has held that in the matter of administrative decisions, even in wrong orders, the Court should not interfere, if the order is not passed in violation of any statutory provision, principle of natural justice or some miscarriage of justice. Relevant part of the said order reads as under: "28. The scope and extent of power of the judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant statute as also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the Courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the supreme lex to the other organs of the State. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review Court. The limited scope of judicial review succinctly put are: (i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies. (ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds. (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal. (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a Court is limited to seeing that Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasions miscarriage of justice. (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a Court is limited to seeing that Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasions miscarriage of justice. (v) The Courts cannot be called upon to undertake the Government duties and functions. The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a Judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies. (See Ira Munn v. State of Ellinois, 1876 (94) US (Supreme Reports) 113)." 8. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 , wherein the Court has held as under: "28...The High Court ought to have considered that it was a writ of certiorari and it was not dealing with an appeal. The writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution can be issued only when there is a failure of justice and it cannot be issued merely because it may be legally permissible to do so. There must be an error apparent on the face of record as the High Court acts merely in a supervisory capacity. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. Such errors may include the giving of reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. It may also include the application of a wrong legal test to the facts found, taking irrelevant considerations into account and failing to take relevant considerations into account, and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, as well as arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Such a writ can be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to act. While issuing the writ of certiorari, the order under challenge should not undergo scrutiny of an appellate court. Such a writ can be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to act. While issuing the writ of certiorari, the order under challenge should not undergo scrutiny of an appellate court. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the statutory authorities. There must be a breach of the principles of natural justice for resorting to such a course. (Vide Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran, Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India and CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.)" 9. Since the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded in the impugned order with regard to the fact that the petitioner has failed to produce any document indicating that she has worked as Sahayika, I find that finding of fact recorded by the authority concerned does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.