Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 395 (HP)

Kurmila Devi v. State of H. P.

2013-05-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The applications were called for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Nurpur Ward No. 7(II), Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (H.P.). Petitioner along with respondent No. 5 was interviewed for the post of Anganwari Worker on 01.08.2007. The committee recommended the name of the petitioner, pursuant to which, she joined her duties on 08.08.2007. The appointment of the petitioner was set aside by the C.D.P.O., Nurpur on 03.09.2007. Petitioner assailed this order by filing CWP No. 1667 of 2007, which was decided on 29.07.2009. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to decide the appeal after giving all the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. However, the fact of the matter is that the appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority-Cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2946 of 2010, which was allowed on 02.07.2010 and the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra was directed to decide the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner, Kagra at Dharamsshala decided the appeal on 18.12.2010. The appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Ward No. 7(11) was cancelled and the respondent No. 5 was ordered to be appointed as Anganwari Worker in Ward No. 7(11). It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala are contrary to the facts and law. He has placed strong reliance on Annexure P-5, according to which, the petitioner was living separately from his family since 2002. He also contended that the income of the petitioner has correctly been assessed at `7500/- and the subsequent findings given by the Tehsildar, Nurpur are bad in law. 3. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, learned vice counsel for respondent No. 5, have supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala on 18.12.2010. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker is governed by the instructions issued by the State Government. Rajnish K. Lall, learned vice counsel for respondent No. 5, have supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala on 18.12.2010. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker is governed by the instructions issued by the State Government. According to Clause 4 "Eligibility Criteria", a candidate is eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari Worker or Helper from whose family no one is in Government/Semi Government employment/service and those belonging to a family which is legally separated as a separate family as per the procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act & Rules before 1st January, 2004. The annual income of the candidate should also not exceed Rs. 8000/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 12000/-. The petitioner at the time of interview has furnished a certificate that her income was not more than Rs. 7500/-. According to Annexure R2/1, paced on record, the family of the petitioner comprised of six members. The status of Sushma Devi, sister-in-law has been shown as unemployed. However, the fact of the matter is that Sushma Devi, sister-in-law of the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 04.01.2003. Petitioner has concealed this material fact at the time of interview. Petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-5, whereby the President, Municipal Council, Nurpur (Kangra) has certified that the petitioner is living separately from his family since March, 2002. The Court has added the President Municipal Council, Nurpur (Kangra) as respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 was also issued notice and was directed to file a supplementary affidavit whether he has issued Annexure P-5 after going through the records or not. The supplementary affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 has tendered apology. According to him, the certificate was signed by Shiv Raj, Municipal Councilor, Municipal Council Nurpur and the same was countersigned by him in good faith, since a request was made to him by Shri Om Prakash, husband of the petitioner. In view of this, no reliance can be placed on Annexure P-5. 6. It is surprising that the petitioner has furnished two sets of certificates. One at the time of appointment and subsequently by way of Annexure P-5. According to the inquiry conducted by Tehsildar, Nurpur, income of the petitioner was more than Rs. In view of this, no reliance can be placed on Annexure P-5. 6. It is surprising that the petitioner has furnished two sets of certificates. One at the time of appointment and subsequently by way of Annexure P-5. According to the inquiry conducted by Tehsildar, Nurpur, income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 18,000/-. In these circumstances, the income certificate issued in her favour on 03.05.2007, has been cancelled. The income of the petitioner should not have been more than Rs. 8,000/-. The petitioners income was more than the prescribed income. 7. Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that other candidates have secured more marks than respondent No. 5. However, the fact of the matter is that these persons are not from the same ward. Smt. Manorama Devi, Pinki Devi and Meena Kumari are resident of Ward No. 9. Smt. Punam Kumari is also resident of Ward No. 9. Respondent No. 5 alone belongs to Ward No. 7(11), where the centre is to be opened. Petitioner has also made a statement before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh on 19.04.2010 that her sister-in-law was engaged as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Ward No. 7 (1), Nurpur. 8. Petitioner was not eligible as per Clause 4 (d)(e) and (f) of the guidelines framed by the State Government for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker/Helper. The Anganwari Workers/Helpers are to be appointed to mitigate the hardships faced by the lowest strata of the Society. The candidates who are affluent should not be appointed as Anganwari Workers/Helpers. There is neither any illegality nor perversity in the order, dated 18.12.2010, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that before offering appointment to respondent No. 5, her annual income shall be taken into consideration. In case the matter is pending before any revenue agency for determining the income of respondent No. 5, no appointment letter shall be issued in her favour till the matter is finally adjudicated upon. The pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. No costs.