Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1054 (HP)

Gulshan Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-12-28

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure P-1 (sic. Annexure P-2 as Annexure P-1 is the judgment of this Court). Annexure P-2 is an order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra in remand by this Court with Annexure P-1. This order contains entire facts in dispute between the parties. 2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra who is exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the scheme for engagement of Anganwadi workers/helpers under ICDS notes that Smt. Meenakshi Devi was appointed as worker in Agarwadi centre at Chari 1. Her selection was challenged by Smt. Gulshan Kumari (petitioner in this writ petition) which selection was set aside on 22.11.2008 in appeal No. 28-Rait holding that Smt. Meenakshi Devi was not resident of the feeding area for Anganwadi centre Chari-1. An appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner who by his order dated 2.1.2009 in appeal No. 579 of 2008 remanded the case holding that the Additional Deputy Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter which was subsequently conferred. Again, the matter was examined by the Additional Deputy Commissioner who set aside Meenakashi’s appointment on the ground that she did not belong to the feeding area. Being aggrieved by this order, Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 2010 titled Meenakashi Devi versus State of H.P. and others was preferred by Meenakashi Devi in which Smt. Gulshan Kumari, petitioner herein was the fifth respondent. This writ petition was disposed of by a common judgment of this Court on 16.6.2010. While disposing of the petition, this Court reiterated its earlier decision in CWP No.1096 of 2010 along with other connected matters holding: “10. Another dispute pertains to the feeding area. Clause 4(a) of the Guidelines provides for the same, which reads as follows: “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.” 11. A contention is raised by some of the petitioners that the feeding area has to be understood as the survey area. We are afraid the contention as per the policy as it stood at the relevant time cannot be accepted. A contention is raised by some of the petitioners that the feeding area has to be understood as the survey area. We are afraid the contention as per the policy as it stood at the relevant time cannot be accepted. The policy at that time only prescribed that the person should be the resident of the village/ward, depending upon the rural or the urban area, as the case may be, where the centre is located. It is sufficient if the applicant belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area. The eligibility has to be understood as on the date of the application, in terms of the policy, which ruled the field at the relevant time. Needless to say, that in case there is no candidate available from the respective feeding areas, prescribed under clause 4(a), it is open to the authorities to exercise its power under Clause 11 of the Policy Guidelines for appropriate relaxation.” 3. It is these directions which would apply and govern the present case. The petitioner pleads that: “5… It is worth to mention that at the time when orders, Annexure P-1, were passed, various writ petitions were decided and for want of proper assistance, orders, Annexure P-1, were passed. In fact, because of mistake proper assistance at that time could not be imparted and as such petitioner begs to file this writ petition with further prayer to review the earlier orders as passed or in the alternative the same may very kindly be modified to the extent prayed here-in-below.” No relief can be granted to the petitioner on these pleadings as the judgment having been attained finality. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment over a decision of Division Bench which could be altered, set aside or modified by the Supreme Court or by that very bench which passed the order. 4. After remand, in order Annexure P-2, the Additional Deputy Commissioner formulated four points necessary for the purpose of decision of the appeal. It was the fourth settled issue which was relevant and to the effect that as to whether Meenakashi Devi satisfy the criteria of service area/feeding area. Adverting to the directions passed by this Court, he holds that the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Shahpur being No.4441/MC, dated 7.11.2006 was to the effect that Meenakashi Devi is resident of Village Chari. Adverting to the directions passed by this Court, he holds that the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Shahpur being No.4441/MC, dated 7.11.2006 was to the effect that Meenakashi Devi is resident of Village Chari. In these circumstances, he holds that Meenakashi Devi belongs to Village Chari in which Aganwadi centre Chari-1 is situated. Anganwadi centre Chari-1 is part of village Chari. Being from same village as Aganwadi centre, her selection was in order. He accordingly directed the reinstatement of Meenakshi Devi 5. Learned counsel submits that the Annexure P-4 which is notification issued on 16.4.2007 for selection of Aganwadi Workers, the eligibility criteria was that one must be the permanent resident of area/ward in which the Aganwadi Centre is situated. The contention as pleaded is that “The selections in the case in hand were made on the basis of notification dated 16.4.2007, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-4, and perusal of the same would depict that there is no such like condition as observed supra and in Annexure P-1, para-11. In fact, what has been prescribed is that applicant must be the resident of village/ward/Angawari area, where aganwari Centre is situate.” 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner seeks setting aside of Annexure P-2. As held by me supra that I cannot alter the judgment of Division Bench for what it decides. Neither can I entertain the submission contrary to what has been decided therein. 7. In reply to the writ petition, respondents No. 1 to 3 submit that Annexure P-2 has been passed in consonance with the judgment in the writ petition supra. Respondent No.4 submits that the judgment of this Court was to be enforced in its letter and spirit. CMP No.2564 was preferred by the petitioner whereby it has been stated that Meenakshi Devi is from Aganwari Centre “Chari Khas” and petitioner Gulshan Kumari from Chari-1. In these circumstances, it is prayed that appointment of the fourth respondent be quashed and petitioner be appointed. 8. Having held that the judgment of this Court cannot be altered, I am unable to entertain this contention that Ex.P-2 is against Law. What this Court had directed is that it is sufficient if the applicant belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Aganwadi area. I find nothing in the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner which decides otherwise. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. What this Court had directed is that it is sufficient if the applicant belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Aganwadi area. I find nothing in the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner which decides otherwise. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. 9. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.