Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 260 (HP)

Hima Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-05-07

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sari, Tehsil Paddhar, District Mandi, H.P. was commenced in the months of June/July, 2007. Petitioner has also participated alongwith other eligible candidates in the selection process. However, respondent No. 3, Smt. Vidya Devi, was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sari, Tehsil Paddhar, District Mandi, H.P. on 09.08.2007. The appointment of respondent No. 3 was assailed by respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. He allowed the same on 26.05.2008. Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The same was dismissed on 24.12.2008. Thereafter, a review petition was filed by the respondent No. 3 and the same was allowed by the learned Divisional Commissioner on 04.03.2009. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 has filed a writ petition before this Court bearing C.W.P. No. 2198 of 2009, assailing the order dated 04.03.2009. The same was allowed by this Court and the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 04.03.2009 was set aside on 12.11.2009. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that after the order of review passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, dated 04.03.2009 has been set aside in C.W.P. No. 2198 of 2009, the order dated 24.12.2008 has revived. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has erred by declaring the petitioner ineligible. He then argued that petitioner belongs to one of the feeder villages, i.e., village Kachotdhar. He lastly contended that as per the order of Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, the next in merit was to be appointed after quashing the appointment of respondent No. 3. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has strenuously argued that the income of petitioner is more than the prescribed income criteria laid down in the scheme framed for making appointment of Anganwari Workers. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. What emerges from the pleadings discussed hereinabove is that respondent No. 3 stood appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sari on 09.08.2007. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside her appointment in an appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 on 26.05.2008. He has ordered that the next in the merit list be offered appointment. 4. What emerges from the pleadings discussed hereinabove is that respondent No. 3 stood appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sari on 09.08.2007. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside her appointment in an appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 on 26.05.2008. He has ordered that the next in the merit list be offered appointment. Petitioner was at Sr. No. 2 in the panel drawn by the selection committee. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has initially upheld the order dated 26.05.2008 by dismissing the appeal on 24.12.2008. He has held that neither the petitioner nor respondents No. 3 and 4 were eligible and has ordered to re-do the entire selection process. Respondent in appeal No. 507/08 preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, H.P. has been found ineligible only on the ground that she did not belong to feeder village of Anganwari Centre, Sari. The Divisional Commissioner has reviewed his order dated 24.12.2008 on 04.03.2009. This order was set aside by this Court on 12.11.200 9. It is, thus, evident that the order dated 24.12.2009 is reviewed after setting aside of the order dated 04.03.2009. The Court had directed the respondent-State to file a supplementary affidavit whether Village Kachotdhar was feeder village for Anganwari Centre, Sari or not? The supplementary affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State. According to the averments contained in the supplementary affidavit, there are four feeder villages of Anganwari Centre, Sari, namely, Sajaun, Kachotdhar, Katiu and Sari. Thus, the petitioner, being resident of Village Kachotdhar, was eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sari. The finding recorded by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is factually incorrect and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has strenuously argued that the income of the petitioner is more than the income prescribed in the policy. According to him, petitioner's husband is running a furniture shop and for that purpose licence was issued in 2004 and the petitioner is registered as agent at Padhar vide registration dated 22.11.2004. 6. According to Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the income of the petitioner is within the limit prescribed under the Scheme. 7. According to him, petitioner's husband is running a furniture shop and for that purpose licence was issued in 2004 and the petitioner is registered as agent at Padhar vide registration dated 22.11.2004. 6. According to Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the income of the petitioner is within the limit prescribed under the Scheme. 7. The Court is of the considered view that respondent No. 3 is required to separately challenge the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner before the concerned authority in accordance with law. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-5, dated 24.12.2008 is set aside, only to the extent, whereby petitioner has been held ineligible and the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has ordered re-doing the selection process. Rest of the order is up-held. Petitioner is declared eligible on the basis of supplementary affidavit filed by the State Government and as per order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. She is to be offered appointment being next in the panel prepared by the selection committee. The appointment letter be issued to the petitioner for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sari within a period of three weeks from today. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.