HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13563 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.09.2025 whereby petitioner's appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker in the center concerned in Jafrapur has been cancelled. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed on the basis of a complaint made by one Smt. Ruchika Mishra to the effect that petitioner was not a domicile of the village where she has been selected. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order will make it evident that same has been passed only on the basis of a report, copy of the same was never provided to the petitioner nor the details of which even find mention in the impugned order. It is therefore submitted that order impugned is virtually non-speaking. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions and on that basis, submits that petitioner was incorrectly selected for the center concerned in Jafrapur whereas she is a resident of Jafarpur and due to misconception with regard to nomenclature of the village concerned, inadvertently the appointment letter was issued to her. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and on perusal of material on record, particularly the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Pratap Singh, Istekhaf Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sangeeta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Child Development And Nutrition Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) impugned order, it is evident that petitioner had earlier as well filed Writ-A No. 7973 of 2025 against the earlier order dated 20.06.2025 cancelleing petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the center concerned. The said petition had been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 22.07.2025 primarily on the ground that she was not provided any opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for consideration afresh. 6. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order had been passed but unfortunately there is no material evidence indicated in the order which would form the basis of the corroboration of complaint against the petitioner. It also appears that reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered at all. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the authority concerned was taking a decision with regard to complaint against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon such authority to have atleast communicated the material on which it formed a substantive opinion that petitioner was not a resident of the center where she was selected or even to indicate that there was some mistake in issuance of the appointment letter. The authority was also required to take into account the reply submitted by petitioner. 8. Considering the fact that the aforesaid facts are completely missing in the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, same is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass order afresh with regard to complaint made against petitioner but specifically indicating the material on which the authority is relying. The reply submitted by the petitioner is also required to be discussed by the authority. For the said purpose, the petitioner shall be re-instated in service. 9. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 24, 2025 lakshman WRIA No. 13563 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench