Order terminating appointment is void for violating natural justice and failing to adjudicate limitation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Mini Anganbadi Karyakarta (Worker) at Village Kandari on 08.03.2019 following an advertisement issued in 2017.

Respondent No. 5 challenged this appointment before the Collector, Balrampur, via an appeal under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging that the petitioner manipulated her date of birth to meet eligibility criteria.

On 17.08.2022, the Collector set aside the petitioner’s appointment, holding that there were anomalies in her mark-sheet.

The petitioner’s subsequent revision before the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, was rejected on 02.12.2022.

The petitioner approached the High Court contending that she was proceeded against *ex parte* on 20.07.2022 and was denied a reasonable opportunity to rebut the allegations of fraud.

Whether the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a fair hearing.

Whether the appellate authority erred in deciding the matter on merits without first adjudicating the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The court primarily applied the principles of Natural Justice (*Audi Alteram Partem*), emphasizing that orders involving civil consequences require a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

It further relied on the procedural mandate that when an appeal is time-barred, the authority must first adjudicate the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before deciding the merits of the case.

The court also referenced the State Government directions dated 02.04.2008 regarding the appointment process of Anganbadi workers.

The Court observed that the allegation of manipulating a date of birth is a serious charge carrying significant civil consequences, necessitating a robust opportunity for defense.

The record indicated that after the petitioner appeared on 20.04.2022, the Collector immediately reserved the matter for orders on the very next date (20.07.2022) when the petitioner was absent, failing to grant further time or verify the records independently.

The Court found that the Collector failed to summon relevant records to verify the mark-sheet and instead relied solely on unsubstantiated allegations.

Furthermore, the Commissioner failed to exercise independent scrutiny and "mechanically affirmed" the Collector's order.

Crucially, the Court noted a procedural lapse where the authorities bypassed the statutory requirement to formally decide the limitation issue under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before overturning the appointment.

The matter was remanded to the Collector, Balrampur, with directions to: (i) decide the Section 5 Limitation Act application first; (ii) provide the petitioner a sufficient opportunity to file a reply and submit evidence; and (iii) pass a reasoned, speaking order on the merits of the appointment and the alleged age manipulation.