Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 256 (HP)

Gulzar Bibi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-01-06

KURIAN JOSEPH, V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of judgment dated 22.11.2010, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P No. 774 of 2010, reversing the orders dated 9.11.2009 and 3.3.2010, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. and thereby restoring the order dated 21.8.2009 of the Addl. District Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P., upholding the selection of private respondent No.5, Smt. Sarla Devi, as Anganwadi Worker. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that interview for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre, Sulagwan, was Yes. held on 7.8.2007, in which private respondent No.5 Smt. Sarla Devi, was selected and she joined on 10.8.2007. Being aggrieved, the appellant, Gulzar Bibi filed an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner, Hamirpur, which was dismissed on 31.8.2007. Thereafter, she took the matter in further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who vide order dated 4.4.2008, remanded the matter to the Dy. Commissioner, Hamirpur. The appeal was heard by the Addl. District Magistrate, Hamirpur, who again dismissed the same on 21.8.2009. The matter was again carried in appeal by the appellant, Gulzar Bibi, before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who accepted the appeal on 9.11.2009, followed by order dated 3.3.2010. 3. The appointment of private respondent No.5, Smt. Sarla Devi, was challenged by the appellant, Gulzar Bibi, mainly on the grounds that on the one hand, she was not awarded two marks on the basis of her experience as a worker in Feeding Centre (Paushtik Ahhar Kendra) from 7.7.1986 to 31.8.1992 and on the other private respondent No.5, Smt. Sarla Devi, is not legally wedded wife of Shri Pritam Chand and in the alternative income of her husband Shri Pritam Chand, who works as Hotel Manager at Jalandhar, is more than ` 10,000/-per month. The impugned judgment dated 22.11.2010, which is supported by the respondents, has been assailed on these grounds. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The impugned judgment dated 22.11.2010, which is supported by the respondents, has been assailed on these grounds. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The matter is governed by the ‘Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers on honorary basis under ICDS scheme run by Social Justice & Empowerment Department’, para 4 whereof being relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal is extracted below:- “Eligibility Criteria Only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker or Helper who are: a) Resident of the village (in case of Rural Area)/ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area: b) For Anganwadi worker minimum qualification shall be Matric or equivalent and for Helper minimum Primary; c) Age between 21-45 years; d) From whose family no one is in Government / Semi Government employment/service; e) Those belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st January, 2004. 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.” 6. Later on the above income criteria of ` 8,000/-was 7. The requirement of clause (a) of para 4 of the above revised upwards to ` 12,000/-. Scheme/Guidelines is that the candidate for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker should be a resident of the village where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area. As per records, private respondent No.5, Smt. Sarla Devi is proved to be a resident of the area for which the appointment has been made. However, according to the appellant, since she is not legally wedded wife of Shri Pritam Chand, she cannot be said to be resident of that area. However, the fact remains that even the appellant has alternatively alleged that her husband Shri Pritam Chand, who is working as a Hotel Manager at Jalandhar, has monthly income of more than ` 10,000/-. Thus, for lack of any cogent, convincing and authenticated evidence except order dated 23.11.2000 of the learned Addl. However, the fact remains that even the appellant has alternatively alleged that her husband Shri Pritam Chand, who is working as a Hotel Manager at Jalandhar, has monthly income of more than ` 10,000/-. Thus, for lack of any cogent, convincing and authenticated evidence except order dated 23.11.2000 of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat (Mandi), under Section 125 Cr.P.C, statement of Shri Pritam Chand recorded in those proceedings and affidavit of one Smt. Leela Devi, stating to be legally wedded wife of Shri Pritam Chand, there is nothing on record to disprove that private respondent No.5, Smt. Sarla Devi is not resident of the area for which appointment has been made. 8. Para 7 of the Scheme/Guidelines is as under:- “Marks Selection shall be based on merit out of the total marks of 20, marks will be awarded as follows:- a) Maximum 9 marks for educational qualification will be in the following manner:- 1. Anganwadi Worker Percentage of marks in matric divided by 10 subject to the maximum of 9 marks. 2. Anganwadi Helper. Primary pass – 9 marks b) 2 marks for experience. (1 mark is to be awarded for every year experience as Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher / Nursery Teacher/ Shishu Palak/ECCE subject to a maximum 2 marks) c) 2 marks for State Home/Balika Asharam Inmates/Orphans/Widows/destitute. Provided that these additional 2 marks will not be given to those widows who are obtaining family pension from the govt. d) 2 marks for SC/ST/OBC and those belonging to ex-service men category / widow and ward of freedom fighter. e) 1 mark for disabled. f) 4 marks for personal interview. Total 20 marks.” 9. The experience claimed by the appellant was as worker , Feeding Centre (Paushtik Ahhar Kendra), which does not fall within the ambit of clause (b) of para 7, supra. It being so, she was rightly not awarded marks under this clause. 10. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference with the judgment under challenge, dated 22.11.2010. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.