JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this Petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon'ble Court. (ii) That Annexure P-9 order dated 15.05.2015 passed by Director Woman and Child Development Officer, Shimla, H.P., respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (iii) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of petitioner in the interest of justice." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the private respondent (Sushila Devi) was initially appointed as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Hambot, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in March/April, 2013. Her appointment was challenged by present petitioner under Clause 12 of the Guidelines framed by the respondent/ State for engagement as Anganwari Helper/ Anganwari Worker, before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P-1), Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. allowed the appeal by holding that income of the selected candidate was in excess of the maximum criteria contained in the Rules. The Appellate Authority further ordered the appointment of petitioner in place of the selected candidate within 45 days of the order. An appeal filed against the said order by Sushila Devi was dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P., vide order dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-2). CWP No.4406 of 2014 filed by her was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner was offered engagement as an Anganwari Helper in place of the selected candidate i.e. private respondent herein. 3. Sushila Devi, thereafter, challenged the veracity of the Income Certificate of present petitioner by initiating proceedings before Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P. Vide order dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure P-4), the Income Certificate, on the strength of which, petitioner was offered appointment, was held to be bad in law. 4. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the same under para 28.21 of Chapter 28 of the H.P. Land Records Manual was dismissed by the Revenue Authorities i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide order dated 24.03.2014 (Annexure P-5). 5. 4. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the same under para 28.21 of Chapter 28 of the H.P. Land Records Manual was dismissed by the Revenue Authorities i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide order dated 24.03.2014 (Annexure P-5). 5. In terms of the observations made in order dated 04.07.2013, wherein liberty was given to present petitioner to obtain a fresh Income Certificate by following the procedure, she again obtained an Income Certificate (Annexure P-6), dated 22.08.2014 as on 22.02.2013, depicting the family income of petitioner to be Rs.14,500/- per annum. 6. In the meanwhile, as despite, the Income Certificate earlier issued to petitioner having been declared bad in law by Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 04.07.2013, she continued to be in service, private respondent filed CWP No.566 of 2015 before this Court. This Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure P-8), with liberty to private respondent herein to file a representation before the Respondent Authorities with further direction to respondents to examine the same and pass appropriate orders within six months. Thereafter, representation was filed before Director Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh who vide order dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure P-9), disposed of said representation of present private respondent by holding that as both the candidates i.e. petitioner and private respondent had become ineligible as on the date of interview for the post of Anganwari Helper in view of para 4 (d) of the Operational Guidelines, fresh interviews be conducted for the post of Anganwari Helper in issue by inviting fresh application. 7. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Annexure P-9 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as impugned order has been passed by the Authority concerned at the back of petitioner without hearing her. As per learned counsel, because the impugned order has civil consequences as far as petitioner is concerned, therefore, the same could not have been passed by the Authority concerned without hearing the petitioner. 9. As per learned counsel, because the impugned order has civil consequences as far as petitioner is concerned, therefore, the same could not have been passed by the Authority concerned without hearing the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that there was nothing bad in the order passed by the Authority i.e. Annexure P-9 dated 15.05.2015, because as it already stood held by Naib-Tehsildar concerned that the certificate, on the basis of which the petitioner was given appointment, was bad as on the date when the interview was held, her continuing as Anganwari Helper was bad in law and the Authority concerned vide Annexure P-9 only formally passed an order and rightly so that as petitioner as also private respondent were ineligible as on the date of interview, therefore, fresh interviews be held for engaging a fresh person on the said post. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that Annexure P-9 has been passed at the back of petitioner. In fact, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that even she was not heard before passing Annexure P-9, by Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh. 12. It is settled law that justice should not only be done, but it should also seen to have been done. Article 14 of the constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness. A decision which is taken in violation of the principles of natural justice is said to be an arbitrary decision. The principles of natural justice envisage that no person should be condemned unheard. It is settled law that no order can be passed by any Authority be it Quasi-Judicial or otherwise at the back of a person, if said order is to have civil consequences qua said party. 13. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that before issuing the directions to conduct fresh interviews for the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Hambot, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. the Authority returned findings that candidature of petitioner as also private respondent was as on the date when they appeared for the interview. In other words, the Authority has held that as on the date when the interviews took place, the candidates were ineligible to hold the post. In other words, the Authority has held that as on the date when the interviews took place, the candidates were ineligible to hold the post. This order undoubtedly, has civil consequences as far as petitioner is concerned. This I say for the reason because as per learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner is not being permitted to perform her duties as Anganwari Helper, however, because her appointment as such has not been set aside by the Competent Authority, she has a right to continue to function against the said post. 14. In view of the fact that Annexure P-9 was passed at the back of petitioner as also private respondent, therefore, without commenting upon correctness of the order on merit, this petition is allowed by setting aside impugned order Annexure P-9 dated 15.05.2015, on the ground that the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. As order Annexure P9 is being set aside by this Court on technicalities i.e. violation of the principles of natural justice, liberty is given to the Authority concerned to pass fresh orders on the representation so filed by the private respondent by adhering to the principles of natural justice i.e. by giving an opportunity of being heard both to the petitioner as well as private respondent and any other stake holder also. 15. Before passing any fresh order, an opportunity shall be given by the Authority concerned to the petitioner as also private respondent to place on record such documents as they may deem fit alongwith any written submissions in case they so desire to submit before the Authority in support of their respective contentions. It is clarified that in this regard only one opportunity shall be granted to the parties and in case they fail to avail said opportunity, then the Authority shall go ahead with passing of the order on said representation. It is clarified that the representation which the Authority has to decide, is the representation which private respondent filed pursuant to the permission for granting by this Court in CWP No.566 of 2015. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications if any. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. It is clarified that the representation which the Authority has to decide, is the representation which private respondent filed pursuant to the permission for granting by this Court in CWP No.566 of 2015. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications if any. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this Petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- "(i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon'ble Court. (ii) That Annexure P-9 order dated 15.05.2015 passed by Director Woman and Child Development Officer, Shimla, H.P., respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (iii) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of petitioner in the interest of justice." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the private respondent (Sushila Devi) was initially appointed as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Hambot, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in March/April, 2013. Her appointment was challenged by present petitioner under Clause 12 of the Guidelines framed by the respondent/ State for engagement as Anganwari Helper/ Anganwari Worker, before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P-1), Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. allowed the appeal by holding that income of the selected candidate was in excess of the maximum criteria contained in the Rules. The Appellate Authority further ordered the appointment of petitioner in place of the selected candidate within 45 days of the order. An appeal filed against the said order by Sushila Devi was dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P., vide order dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure P-2). CWP No.4406 of 2014 filed by her was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.10.2014 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner was offered engagement as an Anganwari Helper in place of the selected candidate i.e. private respondent herein. 3. Sushila Devi, thereafter, challenged the veracity of the Income Certificate of present petitioner by initiating proceedings before Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P. Vide order dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure P-4), the Income Certificate, on the strength of which, petitioner was offered appointment, was held to be bad in law. 4. 3. Sushila Devi, thereafter, challenged the veracity of the Income Certificate of present petitioner by initiating proceedings before Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P. Vide order dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure P-4), the Income Certificate, on the strength of which, petitioner was offered appointment, was held to be bad in law. 4. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the same under para 28.21 of Chapter 28 of the H.P. Land Records Manual was dismissed by the Revenue Authorities i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide order dated 24.03.2014 (Annexure P-5). 5. In terms of the observations made in order dated 04.07.2013, wherein liberty was given to present petitioner to obtain a fresh Income Certificate by following the procedure, she again obtained an Income Certificate (Annexure P-6), dated 22.08.2014 as on 22.02.2013, depicting the family income of petitioner to be Rs.14,500/- per annum. 6. In the meanwhile, as despite, the Income Certificate earlier issued to petitioner having been declared bad in law by Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 04.07.2013, she continued to be in service, private respondent filed CWP No.566 of 2015 before this Court. This Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2015 (Annexure P-8), with liberty to private respondent herein to file a representation before the Respondent Authorities with further direction to respondents to examine the same and pass appropriate orders within six months. Thereafter, representation was filed before Director Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh who vide order dated 15.05.2015 (Annexure P-9), disposed of said representation of present private respondent by holding that as both the candidates i.e. petitioner and private respondent had become ineligible as on the date of interview for the post of Anganwari Helper in view of para 4 (d) of the Operational Guidelines, fresh interviews be conducted for the post of Anganwari Helper in issue by inviting fresh application. 7. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Annexure P-9 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as impugned order has been passed by the Authority concerned at the back of petitioner without hearing her. As per learned counsel, because the impugned order has civil consequences as far as petitioner is concerned, therefore, the same could not have been passed by the Authority concerned without hearing the petitioner. 9. As per learned counsel, because the impugned order has civil consequences as far as petitioner is concerned, therefore, the same could not have been passed by the Authority concerned without hearing the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that there was nothing bad in the order passed by the Authority i.e. Annexure P-9 dated 15.05.2015, because as it already stood held by Naib-Tehsildar concerned that the certificate, on the basis of which the petitioner was given appointment, was bad as on the date when the interview was held, her continuing as Anganwari Helper was bad in law and the Authority concerned vide Annexure P-9 only formally passed an order and rightly so that as petitioner as also private respondent were ineligible as on the date of interview, therefore, fresh interviews be held for engaging a fresh person on the said post. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that Annexure P-9 has been passed at the back of petitioner. In fact, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that even she was not heard before passing Annexure P-9, by Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh. 12. It is settled law that justice should not only be done, but it should also seen to have been done. Article 14 of the constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness. A decision which is taken in violation of the principles of natural justice is said to be an arbitrary decision. The principles of natural justice envisage that no person should be condemned unheard. It is settled law that no order can be passed by any Authority be it Quasi-Judicial or otherwise at the back of a person, if said order is to have civil consequences qua said party. 13. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that before issuing the directions to conduct fresh interviews for the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Hambot, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. the Authority returned findings that candidature of petitioner as also private respondent was as on the date when they appeared for the interview. In other words, the Authority has held that as on the date when the interviews took place, the candidates were ineligible to hold the post. In other words, the Authority has held that as on the date when the interviews took place, the candidates were ineligible to hold the post. This order undoubtedly, has civil consequences as far as petitioner is concerned. This I say for the reason because as per learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner is not being permitted to perform her duties as Anganwari Helper, however, because her appointment as such has not been set aside by the Competent Authority, she has a right to continue to function against the said post. 14. In view of the fact that Annexure P-9 was passed at the back of petitioner as also private respondent, therefore, without commenting upon correctness of the order on merit, this petition is allowed by setting aside impugned order Annexure P-9 dated 15.05.2015, on the ground that the same was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. As order Annexure P9 is being set aside by this Court on technicalities i.e. violation of the principles of natural justice, liberty is given to the Authority concerned to pass fresh orders on the representation so filed by the private respondent by adhering to the principles of natural justice i.e. by giving an opportunity of being heard both to the petitioner as well as private respondent and any other stake holder also. 15. Before passing any fresh order, an opportunity shall be given by the Authority concerned to the petitioner as also private respondent to place on record such documents as they may deem fit alongwith any written submissions in case they so desire to submit before the Authority in support of their respective contentions. It is clarified that in this regard only one opportunity shall be granted to the parties and in case they fail to avail said opportunity, then the Authority shall go ahead with passing of the order on said representation. It is clarified that the representation which the Authority has to decide, is the representation which private respondent filed pursuant to the permission for granting by this Court in CWP No.566 of 2015. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications if any. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.