Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 570 (HP)

Anchana Kumari v. State of H. P

2012-09-17

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, Judge: 1. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 3 has initiated the process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker/Helper in Anganwari Centre, Panyala, District Bilaspur, H.P. Petitioner and respondent No. 4 participated in the selection process. They were called for the interview on 19.07.2007. Petitioner was offered appointment letter on 07.08.2007. However, the respondent No. 4 assailed the appointment of petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, District Bilaspur, H.P. The same was accepted on 27.08.2007. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, Division Mandi, H.P. The same was rejected on 22.07.2008. Petitioner challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, dated 22.07.2008 by way of CWP No. 1698 of 2008. The same was allowed by this Court on 29th August, 2011 and the matter was remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi, H.P. rejected the appeal on 10.10.2011 by upholding the order dated 27.08.2007. 2. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that two marks for experience could not be awarded to respondent No. 4, since she was not teaching in Government School/Government aided School. She has placed strong reliance on the information supplied to her client under Right to Information Act vide Annexure P-7, dated 29.07.2010. 3. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have supported the order, dated 10.10.2011. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 5. The appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker is governed by notification, dated 11th April, 2007. Clause-7 of the Scheme provides the manner in which the marks have to be awarded. The relevant portion of the same reads thus: “7.2 (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 maximum 2 marks)” 6. It is evident from the plain reading of Clause-7.2(b) that one mark is to be awarded for every year experience as Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ECCE subject to a maximum two marks, including Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher. It is not mentioned therein that experience as a Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ECCE should be from Government/Government aided School. 7. Ms. It is evident from the plain reading of Clause-7.2(b) that one mark is to be awarded for every year experience as Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ECCE subject to a maximum two marks, including Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher. It is not mentioned therein that experience as a Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ECCE should be from Government/Government aided School. 7. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-7, whereby no marks have been provided for those candidates, who have gained experience in private Schools. 8. We have directed the Principal Secretary, Social Justice & Empowerment to file an affidavit answering the following issues on 21.06.2012: 9. In sequel thereto, the respondent-State has filed the supplementary affidavit. According to the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, the guidelines were issued on 11.04.2007 and have been amended on 06.07.2007, 20.09.2007, 17.06.2008, 18.11.2008, 07.01.2009 and 05.10.2009. However, with regard to the marks for teaching experience, no amendment has been made in the guidelines. It is further averred in the supplementary affidavit that when the recruitment process for the posts of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers was going on during the year 2006, the field officers had sought clarification on this issue from the then Director, Social Justice & Empowerment, who had clarified on 01.12.2006 to all the District Programme Officers and the Child Development Project Officers posted in Himachal Pradesh that “candidates having diploma of Nursery Teacher and on the basis of that diploma having experience of teaching in any Govt./Semi Govt. may be given experience marks”. This clarification was given by the Director, Social Justice & Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh on 01.12.2006. 10. The appointment of petitioner and respondent No. 4 is governed under the notification, which is issued on 11.04.2007. It is clear that no amendment has been provided in the guidelines issued on 11.04.2007 and we can not read in the guidelines on the basis of Annexure R-1, dated 01.12.2006 that the marks for teaching experience is to be confined only to the persons who have taught in Government/Government aided Schools. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary (Social Justice & Empowerment) that the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was based on letter dated 01.12.2006. 11. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by Principal Secretary (Social Justice & Empowerment) that the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act was based on letter dated 01.12.2006. 11. The respondent No. 4 has taught in Tiny Tots Public Sschool, Talyana w.e.f. 1st September,2003 and a certificate to this effect has been issued by the Principal on 07.07.2006. Respondent No. 4 has also placed on record the information received vide Annexure R-4/2, whereby Tiny Tots Public School, Talyana is also included in the list of privately managed schools affiliated with Board of School Education, H.P. for the academic Session 2004-2005. In view of this, respondent No. 4 was entitled to get two marks for teaching as Nursery Teacher. 12. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the certificate produced by respondent No. 4 was false. An FIR was registered in this regard. The matter was investigated by the police and the FIR was cancelled. 13. What emerges from the discussion made hereinabove, is that there is no restriction in the guidelines to the effect that teaching experience must be that of Government School or Government aided School. 14. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. “(i) Whether there are any amendments to the Rules/guidelines issues on 11.4.2007 in this regard. (ii) If there was no amendment how have the authorities read the words “government/semi-government schools” into the notification in question. (iii) Under what circumstances, the information at page 42-A was given to the petitioner.”