Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 992 (HP)

Neelam v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-12-18

DEEPAK GUPTA, KULDIP SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby he held that the income certificate of the private respondent No. 4, Sanjeev Kumari, was proper and, therefore, refused to set aside her appointment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner, Smt. Neelam, and respondent No. 4, Smt. Sanjeev Kumari, both applied for the job of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Center, GassoudII. Respondent No. 4, Sanjeev Kumari, was selected. Neelam Kumari filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, who directed the parties to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Bilaspur, who would look into the eligibility of both the parties. The Sub Divisional Magistrate reheard the parties and vide his judgment dated 05.11.2007 came to the conclusion that the income certificate of Sanjeev Kumari appeared to be fictitious and required proper enquiry. However, this was not a conclusive finding, but the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the husband of Sanjeev Kumari was working as a C-class Government Contractor and, therefore, presumed to have a sound financial background. As such, the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, set aside the appointment of Sanjeev Kumari. 3. At the same time, the Deputy Commissioner also came to the conclusion that Smt. Neelam was also ineligible for appointment as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Center, Gassoud. Therefore, both Neelam and Sanjeev Kumari filed writ petitions before this Court, which were disposed of alongwith a large number of other cases and the matter was remanded to the authorities below to again determine the question of income. 4. The Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, held that the Tehsildar Sadar, Bilaspur, vide his report dated 16.07.2011 has come to the conclusion that the income certificate issued in favour of Smt. Sanjeev Kumari is valid and correct and, therefore, has refused to set aside the appointment of Sanjeev Kumari. 5. This case brings out certain very interesting facts. From the material on record, it is apparent that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Bilaspur, in his order dated 05.11.2007, had given the following finding: “From the record tendered by the appellant it is proved that Smt. Satya Devi, mother-in-law of the respondent (whose name has been shown as transferred to another Panchayat w.e.f. January, 2007) is owner of Tractor No. HP-690720 and Sh. Mohinder Singh, husband of the respondent No. 1 is Govt. HPPWD Contractor and has done works of Rs. 1,38,806// during 200607 and work of Rs. 15,93,852/- has been awarded to him on 23.04.2007 and in addition to this the family of respondent No. 1 is having sufficient land as per copies of Jamabandi tendered in the file. Keeping in view these circumstances, the income certificate of respondent No. 1 seems to be fictitious and requires proper enquiry in the matter.” 6. After remand from the High Court, the petitioner had placed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur, the affidavit of Shri Mohinder Kumar, husband of respondent No. 4Sanjeev Kumari, attested on 16.07.2003, in which he had clearly declared that the value of his land measuring 10 bighas at Village Gassaud was Rs.15 lacs. He had also submitted that he had done work of more than Rs.16 lacs as a contractor. The husband of respondent-Sanjeev Kumari is admittedly a C-class Government contractor. Details of works awarded to the husband of respondent-Sanjeev Kumari were placed on record, which showed that he had done work amounting to Rs.98,926/- in the year 2006-07 and Rs.15,93,852/- in the year 2007-08. Income Tax Certificates were also placed on record to show that the husband of Sanjeev Kumari had paid income tax amounting to Rs.2,466/-, Rs.2,482/- and Rs.3,931/in the years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. An Alto car was also purchased by Mohinder Kumar on 12.11.2007 and a tractor stood registered in the name of Smt. Satya Devi, mother-in-law of Sanjeev Kumari. 7. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, District Bilaspur gave a very absurd finding. According to him, the family of Mohinder Kumar had been separated on 27.11.2008 and rejected the application of the petitioner. When there was so much material on record including the affidavit of Mohinder Kumar and evidence showing that husband of Sanjeev Kumari had purchased a car, it could easily be presumed that his income was more than Rs.12,000/- per annum and, therefore, Sanjeev Kumari could not have been eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. 8. When there was so much material on record including the affidavit of Mohinder Kumar and evidence showing that husband of Sanjeev Kumari had purchased a car, it could easily be presumed that his income was more than Rs.12,000/- per annum and, therefore, Sanjeev Kumari could not have been eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. 8. It has been strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents that even the petitioner is ineligible for appointment and that the income of her family is also more than Rs.12,000/- per annum and in this behalf certain documents have been placed on record including material to show that the petitioner and her husband are paying premium of more than Rs.7,000/- per year of LIC policies. The explanation given by the petitioner is that this premium is being paid by her brother and his affidavit has also been filed in this regard. No explanation has been given as to what is the income of her brother and how he can afford to pay premium of Rs.7,418/- annually for his sister and brother-in-law. 9. To us, it appears that both, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, have income much more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by quashing the appointment of respondent No. 4-Sanjeev Kumari. However, keeping in view the fact that the income of the family of the petitioner is also more than Rs.12,000/-, we direct that fresh selection be made to fill up the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Center, Gassoud. The needful be done latest by 31st March, 2013. Till then, respondent No. 4 can continue to work.