Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 941 (HP)

ROSHANI DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-11-08

A.M.KHANWILKAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre run by respondent No. 5. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No. 6, inter alia, on the ground that the Selecting Authority wrongly gave two additional marks to the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner pertain to private institution. The Additional District Magistrate, Mandi who heard the said complaint, accepted the said challenge and in his order dated 27th August, 2011 noted that the provisions of Clause 7(2) (b) & (c) of the Scheme/guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Worker and Helper, two additional marks could not be given on the basis of the experience certificate obtained from a private institution. 3. IT is common ground that the Authority adverted to incorrect provisions of the Scheme, i.e., 7(2). That provision pertains to Anganwari Helpers whereas post in question, against which the petitioner has been appointed is Anganwari Worker. That is governed by clause 7 (1) of the Scheme and in particular clause (b) thereof, which reads thus: - "Maximum 2 marks for experience to be given as under: - One mark for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for one year or Shishu Palak of ECCE center for 10 months. Two marks for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for two or more years." 4. THIS Scheme nowhere mentions that the experience certificate must necessarily pertain to Government/semi Government institution. In other words, the experience certificate produced by the petitioner given by the private institution could not have been ignored in terms of this provision. The decision of the Additional District Magistrate came to be confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 10th May, 2013. Both these decisions are subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The respondents, however, in addition to clause 7 (1) of the Scheme have placed reliance on the communication issued under the signatures of the Director, Social Justice & Empowerment (HP) dated 1st December, 2006 to buttress reason recorded by the two Authorities, referred to above, at page 148, which reads thus: - 5. The respondents, however, in addition to clause 7 (1) of the Scheme have placed reliance on the communication issued under the signatures of the Director, Social Justice & Empowerment (HP) dated 1st December, 2006 to buttress reason recorded by the two Authorities, referred to above, at page 148, which reads thus: - 5. HOWEVER, this communication has not been adverted to, either by the first Authority, or for that matter, by the Divisional Commissioner. They have decided the issue purely on the basis of provisions contained in clause 7(2) of the Scheme and nothing more. 6. AS a result, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and relegate the private parties once again before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi for reconsideration of the matter. It will be open to the Divisional Commissioner to examine whether the communication issued by the Director dated 1st December, 2006 is still holding the field and also whether the Director had authority to issue such instructions which are not part of the Scheme concerning appointment of the Anganwari Workers. All questions in that behalf are left open to be decided by the Divisional Commissioner. We are not expressing any opinion either way in that behalf. This petition is disposed of with direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi to schedule the hearing of the proceedings on 18th November, 2013 at 11 a.m., on which date and time, the private parties shall remain present in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. They have waived formal notice for hearing of the appeal proceedings through their counsel before this Court. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, may decide the mater expeditiously.