Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 453 (HP)

JEET RAM v. STATE OF H. P

2009-05-14

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the scheme/guidelines framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the engagement of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers on honorary basis under the I.C.D.S. Scheme run by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. Sh.Jagdish Thakur, Advocate appearing vice Mr.N.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to two clauses of this Scheme. 2. According to him, these clauses relating to ex-servicemen are totally contradictory and, therefore, he urges that the ceiling limit of income prescribed for in Clause 4(f) should not apply in cases of ex-servicemen category. To appreciate the contention of Sh.Jagdish Thakur, reference may be made to Clause 4(f) which reads as follows:- “4 Eligibility Criteria f) Those whose annual income does not exceed Rs.8000 per annum to be certified/countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.” 3. The ceiling limit prescribed is Rs.8000/- per annum. We have now been informed that the ceiling limit is now Rs.12,000/- per annum. The other clause which is to be considered is clause 7.2(d) which reads as follow:- “7. Marks 2. Anganwari Helper d) 2 marks for SC/ST/OBC and those belonging to ex-service men category/widow and ward of freedom fighter.” 4. A reading of clause 7.2(d) clearly shows that two marks are to be awarded to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and also to those belonging to ex-servicemen category. Sh.Jagdish Thakur contends and rightly so that any ward or widow of ex-serviceman would not be eligible to apply since the pension of the ex-serviceman would be definitely more than 8000/- or 12,000/- per annum. He, therefore, contends that the ceiling limit should not be applied in the case of this category. 5. We are unable to accept this argument of Sh.Jagdish Thakur. There is no manner of doubt that a bare reading of the aforesaid clauses does show that there is inherent conflict between the two provisions. However, the question which arises is which provision should give in way to the other. While deciding this question, we have to keep into consideration the overall purpose of the Scheme. The Anganwadi Scheme is basically a scheme to ensure that children in the villages have somebody to look after them when their parents/guardians are out at work. However, the question which arises is which provision should give in way to the other. While deciding this question, we have to keep into consideration the overall purpose of the Scheme. The Anganwadi Scheme is basically a scheme to ensure that children in the villages have somebody to look after them when their parents/guardians are out at work. If the entire scheme is gone through, it is apparent that the emphasis of the scheme is to ensure that the employment as Anganwadi Worker/Helper on honorary basis is to be given to those belonging to the poorest/depressed families. It appears that prior to these guidelines, there was no income limit. The income ceiling was provided by the Government at a later stage. It appears that when this income limit was inserted in the scheme, the framers of the scheme lost sight of the provision relating to grant of two marks to wards/widows of ex-servicemen and freedom fighters. The spirit of the guidelines is to fill up the vacancies in such a manner that employment is given to the poorest of the poor. This is the stand of the State itself. 6. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that clause 7.2(d) is redundant in so far as it grants two marks to the ex-servicemen and freedom fighter category. Income ceiling limit fixed by the State has to apply in all cases. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.