Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 558 (HP)

Ganga Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-05-09

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
Judgment : Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) The impugned Annexure P-6, dated 23.4.2013, passed by respondent No.3 and Annexure P-8, passed by respondent No. 2, dated 15.5.2013, may very kindly be ordered to be quashed, which was passed, ignoring the selection made by the Selection Committee, which was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunka etc. etc. vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan etc. etc. AIR 1990 SC 434 and the judgment reported in 1997 Vol. II Service Cases Today at page 538. (ii) That the impugned orders Order dated 27.11.2010, as Annexure P-3, issued by respondent No. 7, may kindly be ordered to be held as valid certificate for the purpose of income, which had attained finality. (iii) That the impugned orders as Annexures P-4 & P-5, passed by respondents No. 4 & 7, regarding the cancellation of income certificate of the petitioner may also be quashed and set aside. (iv) Directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Jananay, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi (H.P.) in pursuance to her selection made vide Annexure P1 by the duly constituted Committee as the petitioner is still working and drawing her salary every month and is performing her duties as Anganwari Worker. (v) That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court. (vi) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout. (vii) Any other orders which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Undisputedly, order dated 15.5.2013 (Annexure P-8) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi does not deal with the issues and the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed before him. The appeal was dismissed in limine without even calling the record. The question of findings returned by the authorities with regard to the income of the petitioner and the private respondent was subject matter which required consideration, which unfortunately was not so done while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-8). 3. As such, on this short ground alone, impugned order dated 15.5.2013 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Appeal filed by the present petitioner stands revived. 3. As such, on this short ground alone, impugned order dated 15.5.2013 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside. Appeal filed by the present petitioner stands revived. Parties undertake to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi on 18th June, 2014. Hearing is expedited. The Divisional Commissioner shall decide the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of six months thereafter. 4. Since appointment of the present petitioner stands cancelled and the private respondent is discharging her duties as Anganwari Worker at the Anganwari Centre in question, such arrangement shall continue to remain in operation till the decision of the appeal. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.