Further action dropped after altered court order promising an Anganwadi job surfaced; applicant apologises for the incident

The petitioner challenged the selection of respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker for Alamela, Ward No. 9, and sought quashing of the selection list and a direction for her own appointment.

The Court had granted an interim stay of the selection list.

Respondent No. 5 later alleged that a copy of the interim order used before the authorities had been tampered with by adding a sentence stating that the petitioner’s selection was complete and a joining letter would issue within 45 days.

After the Court sought an explanation and directed production of records, the petitioner appeared and stated that she did not know who had produced the altered order. In an affidavit, she denied manipulating the order, said she had signed a paper without knowing its contents, expressed regret, and sought permission to withdraw the petition.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the selection of respondent No. 5 quashed and to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker.

2. Whether further proceedings were necessary concerning the alleged tampering with the interim order, in light of the petitioner’s affidavit and apology.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or substantive legal test in resolving either the selection challenge or the allegation concerning the altered order.

It considered the petitioner’s affidavit and apology and concluded that further action was not necessary in the circumstances.

The Court did not examine the merits of the selection dispute.

After the petitioner stated that she did not intend to prosecute the case and filed an affidavit seeking withdrawal, the Court considered her expression of remorse and unconditional apology.

It then concluded that further proceedings concerning the alleged alteration were unnecessary, without making a determination as to who had altered or submitted the order.

It did not decide whether respondent No. 5’s selection was valid or whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment, and it ordered the original records produced by respondent No. 4 to be returned.