Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1687 (HP)

Sita Devi v. State of H. P.

2014-11-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent No. 7 was selected for appointment to the post of Anganbadi worker in Anganbadi Centre Gadhraur. Subsequent to her selection for appointment as Anganbadi worker, she secured her appointment in the capacity aforesaid. However, the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 7 in the capacity aforesaid. The petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Anganbadi worker. In trite the grievance ventilated against the appointment of respondent No. 7 is couched in the factum of hers being ineligible in as much as her income in infraction of the apposite guidelines governing the selection and appointment of Anganbadi worker by the respondents No. 1 to 6, falling above the maximum ceiling of Rs.8000/- per annum. The rendition of pronouncements comprised in Annexure P-12 of 10.12.2013 and P-14 of 24.6.2014 by the competent authority seized with the matter qua the selection of respondent No. 7 have been assailed to be anvilled upon both mis-appreciation or non-appreciation of apposite material on record. Consequently, a prayer for both Annexures P-12 and P-14 being quashed and set aside is voiced in the writ petition. 2. Even though, previous to the rendition of orders comprised in Annexure P-12, the Tehsildar, Sadar, Mandi, had in his report of 21.4.2011, qua fulfillment of income criteria by both the petitioner and respondent No. 7 enunciated therein that since both the petitioner and respondent No. 7 had in the relevant year an income more than the prescribed limit, hence he proceeded to cancel the income certificates issued earlier by his office. In his report the Tehsildar Sadar, Mandi of 21.4.2011, had hence pronounced the ineligibility of both the petitioner and respondent No. 7 for being considered for selection and consequent appointment to the post of Anganbadi worker on the score of their income falling outside/above the maximum ceiling of income per annum prescribed in the apposite rules. The same had come to be challenged by the aggrieved before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sadar, District Mandi, who accepted their appeal. Consequently, the Reports of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Mandi of 21.4.2011 and 3.7.2012 were set aside. The same had come to be challenged by the aggrieved before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sadar, District Mandi, who accepted their appeal. Consequently, the Reports of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Mandi of 21.4.2011 and 3.7.2012 were set aside. The concomitant effect thereof was that the certificates issued to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 qua their income were held to be in order at the stage when the authority who rendered Annexure P-11 came to be seized of the matter. On an appeal having been preferred by the petitioner herein before the learned Deputy Commissioner, he under Annexure P-12, on an incisive consideration of the material as laid before him had concluded that the order rendered by the Sub Divisional Collector comprised in Annexure P-11, whereby he set aside the report of 3.7.2012 pronounced by the Tehsildar Sadar, Mandi, whereby the latter had cancelled the income certificate, was anvilled upon a circumspect as well as an in-depth analysis of the material in consonance with the apposite guidelines. The petitioner herein was aggrieved by the order comprised in Annexure P-12, hence, came to institute an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in his orders comprised in Annexure P-14 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the impugned order rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, was dismissed. The authority aforesaid in the penultimate paragraph of his pronouncement has magnifyingly portrayed therein the factum of existence of a patent mistake committed by the Tehsildar Sadar in recalculating the income of both the parties and the actual size of the family on an appropriate reckonable date for computing and assessing the income of the petitioner and respondent No. 7. The conclusions as well as inferences as arrived at by the authority who pronounced and rendered the order comprised in Annexure P-14 while affirming the order rendered in Annexure P-12 are anvilled upon an appropriate assessment of the material on record. The conclusions as well as inferences as arrived at by the authority who pronounced and rendered the order comprised in Annexure P-14 while affirming the order rendered in Annexure P-12 are anvilled upon an appropriate assessment of the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to portray before this Court that the findings and inferences arrived at by the authority who rendered Annexure P-14 in as much as it having inferred that the Tehsildar had committed an apparent and patent mistake in recalculating income of both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 as well as the actual size of their families as it stood on the appropriate reckonable date i.e. 1.1.2004 are infirmed on the score of both the authorities who rendered Annexure P-12 and P-14 having omitted to consider the apposite/germane material on record or theirs having been prodded to record such a finding or having arrived at findings and inferences aforesaid while mis-appreciating the apposite material on record. In the absence of material on record forthrightly pronouncing the factum of the authorities who rendered Annexures P-12 and P- 14 having committed a legal impropriety comprised in theirs excluding germane and apposite material and including discardable material, the inevitable conclusion which ensues is that hence the orders comprised in Annexure P-12 of 10.12.2013 and P-14 of 24.6.2014, cannot be construed to have acquired any taint or blemish of non-application of mind. Consequently, this Court is constrained to uphold the orders comprised in Annexures P-12 of 10.12.2013 and P-14 of 24.6.2014. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed, as also pending applications, if any.