Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1056 (HP)

Krishna Devi v. State of H. P.

2015-08-07

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre, Kurmala along with respondent No. 4. The interviews were held on 23.7.2007. The Selection Committee selected the petitioner. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 on 4.8.2007. Respondent No. 4 challenged the appointment of petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.5.2008. Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. He remanded the matter to decide it afresh on 4.9.2008. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, allowed the appeal vide order dated 23.11.2009. The petitioner filed CWP No. 4872 of 2009 before this Court. It was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2010. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, again cancelled the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 8.3.2011. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner. The learned Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same on 4.9.2014, vide Annexure P-5. 2. The case of the petitioner, precisely, is that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under para 12 of the Scheme. It was also contended that the petitioner separated from the joint family before 1.1.2004. 3. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 have supported the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Solan and learned Divisional Commissioner dated 8.3.2011 and 4.9.2014, respectively. 4. The interviews were held on 23.7.2007. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2007. The petitioner joined duty on 8.8.2007. According to the reply filed by respondent No. 4, she came to know about the joining of the petitioner only on 8.8.2007 and thereafter within 15 days, she filed the appeal on 21.8.2007. 5. According to para 12 of the Scheme, any candidate aggrieved by any order passed by the Child Development Project Officer appointing Anganwadi Worker and Helper, may file an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 15 days of the declaration of the result. There is no contemporaneous material placed on record to show as to when the result was declared and in what manner it was notified or published. Respondent No. 4 came to know about the result only when the petitioner joined the duty on 8.8.2007. She filed an appeal on 21.8.2007. There is no contemporaneous material placed on record to show as to when the result was declared and in what manner it was notified or published. Respondent No. 4 came to know about the result only when the petitioner joined the duty on 8.8.2007. She filed an appeal on 21.8.2007. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, prescribed under para 12 of the Scheme. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan in his order has observed that according to the enquiry held by S.D.O.(C), Arki, the family of petitioner was recorded to be separated w.e.f. 12.4.2005 but there was no order from the S.D.O.(C) to this effect. Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that Daulat Ram, husband of the petitioner, has filed affidavit dated 12.4.2005 to the effect that on 1.1.2004, they were not holding the status of separate family. The petitioner’s father-in-law Het Ram was working as regular Conductor in HRTC, Unit No. 3. He was drawing more than Rs. 10,000/- as monthly salary. Thus, the income certificate dated 14.5.2007 was not in accordance with law. There is a detailed procedure, the manner in which the entries in the Pariwar Register are to be made under Rule 21 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 provides that at the close of each calendar year, the entries in the Pariwar Register, required to be prepared under sub-rule (1) to be revised and all entries pertaining to births, deaths and marriages shall be made in the register, which had taken place during the preceding year i.e. upto the 31st day of December. No other addition or alteration can be made without any authenticated evidence or certificate of the member of concerned constituency of the Gram Panchayat. In the event of division of the family, separation of family is to be entered in the Pariwar Register, on the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, given by him after due inquiry and order thereon by Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned. It is the duty of the Panchayat Inspector to very those entries after satisfying himself about the reasons recorded by the Panchayat Secretary. 7. It is the duty of the Panchayat Inspector to very those entries after satisfying himself about the reasons recorded by the Panchayat Secretary. 7. In the instant case, as rightly observed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in order dated 4.9.2014, there is neither the recommendation of the Block Development Officer nor any order was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (C), for separation of family of the petitioner before 1.1.2004. The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan and learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, dated 8.3.2011 and 4.9.2014, respectively, are speaking and detailed orders. All the pleas raised by the parties have been considered in the right perspective. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.