Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45001 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6643 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sandhya Tiwari Respondent :- Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Tripathi,Manas Awasthi,Sanjay Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties who has been provided written instructions dated 10.06.2025, which is taken on record. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.05.2025 whereby petitioner's earlier selection and appointment on the post of Anganbadi Worker in the Center in question has been cancelled on the ground that she is not a resident of the village concerned. 3. It has been submitted that despite the fact that petitioner has been selected on the post of Anganbadi Worker in the village concerned and was also issued an appointment letter dated 16.04.2025, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, only on complaint made by one Ms. Sanju Kumari. It is submitted that petitioner having been appointed on the said post has a vested right for an opportunity of hearing. 4. Learned State counsel on the basis of written instruction has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that on the complaint dated 07.05.2025, inquiry was conducted and it was found that petitioner did not fall within the category for which she had been selected since she was not a resident at the village concerned. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, ex facie, it is evident from the impugned order itself that petitioner had been selected on the aforesaid post in the village concerned and appointment letter dated 16.04.2025 had also been issued to her whereafter a complaint was made 07.05.2025 and upon examination of which, impugned order cancelling petitioner's selection and appointment has been passed. 6. Neither the impugned order nor the instructions advert to any opportunity of hearing having been supplied to petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. In the considered opinion of this court, once petitioner had not only been selected but had also been issued an appointment letter in pursuance of such selection, she acquired vested right of being heard prior to cancellation of appointment letter since any such appointment would have adverse civil consequence upon petitioner. 7. Such flouting of principles of natural justice, render the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 unsustainable and the same is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass order afresh, if require but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering her reply. 8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench