The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of clear and unambiguous notice to the parties, adherence to the principles of natural justice, and the need for the Court to make it clear in the order issuing notice if the petition may be/will be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.83129/2011 (S-RES) whereby, the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 - petitioner was finally allowed. The writ petition was preferred by respondent No.1, challenging her removal from service as Anganwadi Worker and appointing respondent No.3 i.e., the appellant in the present writ appeal, to the said post by the Tahsildar, Lingasugur.

2. In the writ petition, on 26.09.2011, an "emergent notice" was issued to the appellant. The order dated 26.09.2011 reads thus:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to implead the Tahsildar, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District as Respondent No.4.

Permission is granted. He may implead the Tahsildar as Respondent No.4.

Learned AGA is directed to take notice for R1, R2 & R4.

Issue emergent notice to R-3."

3. Thereafter, the writ petition was placed before the learned Single Judge on 05.03.2012 and 06.03.2012. On 05.03.2012, none appeared for the petitioner and on 06.03.2012, none appeared for the parties. The order sheet shows, on 07.03.2012, an endorsement was made by the Court Officer to list the petition on 08.03.2012 as directed by the Court. On 08.03.2012, it was directed to be placed on Board on 12.03.2012. On 12.03.2012, once again an endorsement was made by the Court Officer to call the petition on 14.03.2012. On 14.03.2012, the learned Judge, after having noticed that respondent No.3 i.e., the appellant, was served, heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, and allowed the writ petition finally. Admittedly, the appellant-respondent No.3, though was served did not enter her appearance, either in person or through an advocate.

4. Before we proceed further, it would be relevant to notice few facts. Respondent No.1 herein was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Uppar Nandihal Village, based on residential certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Subsequently, the Tahsildar on the basis of report of Revenue Inspector, passed an order dated 13.05.2011 canceling the residential certificate issued to respondent No.1. Then, the appellant was recommended to be appointed on the said post, who had married a person from Uppar Nandihal Village and was residing there for about five years. The said order was passed without hearing respondent No.1. It is against this backdrop, the learned Single Judge finally decided/allowed the writ petition, wherein substantive rights of the parties were involved, by making the following observations in paragraphs 4 to 8.

"4. Based on the residential certificate issued by fourth respondent herein, petitioner is appointed for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Uppar Nandihal Village. It is seen that vide Annexure- "K", the Child Development Authority has cancelled the appointment of petitioner and appointed third respondent to said post based on the order of fourth respondent, which is produced today as R-1 and the said R-1 is passed pursuant to R

3.

5. On going through the pleadings and documents produced by the petitioner and also the documents produced by learned Government Pleader, it is seen that the petitioner herein is also resident of Uppar Nandihal Village for past 5-6 years after having left her husband, she has been residing in the said village along with her three minor daughters and the residential certificate, which is given to her vide Annexure-"D" is cancelled by fourth respondent, without giving sufficient opportunity to her to demonstrate that she has secured the said certificate by giving false declaration.

6. In that view of the matter, order passed by fourth respondent vide Annexure-R.1 is without basis and contrary to the records produced at R-3, where there is clear admission that the petitioner is resident of Uppar Nandihal Village for a period of 5t6 years prior to issue of Annexure - "D'.

7. In that view of the matter