Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 564 (UTT)

DEEPIKA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-10

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The issue in both these writ petitions are similar i.e. appointment for the Mini Aganwari Karyakarti for Bal Vikas Pariyogna, Naugaon, District Uttarkashi. Both the petitioners in the above writ petitions were candidates for the post of Mini Aganwari Karyakarti in the above centre in which Km. Deepika (petitioner in WPSS No. 1649 of 2015) was ultimately selected and appointed. In WPSS No. 1925 of 2013, the petitioner – Smt. Beena Rana has challenged the appointment of Km. Deepika. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Smt. Beena Rana) submits that one of the essential conditions for appointment of Mini Aganwari Karyakarti is that she should be the resident of the same village where the post lying vacant and second the candidate should be High School. Both the petitioners i.e. Km. Deepika and Smt. Beena Rana are having the above eligibility, which is the admitted position in the present case. 3. The next is whether a candidate belongs to BPL* as such candidates are given a preference. In the present case, since Smt. Beena Rana is a married woman, and therefore, her income is to be determined by the income of her husband and since Km. Deepika is unmarried, her income is to be determined by the income of her father. 4. The main contention of the petitioner (Smt. Beena Rana) before this Court is that Smt. Deepika does not belong to a family, which is below the poverty line, as the family does not have the Below Poverty Line (in short ‘BPL’) card issued by the authority concerned in their favour at the relevant time. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the writ petition (WPSS No. 1925 of 2013) Smt. Beena Rana filed a complaint to District Programme Officer, Child Development, Uttarkashi, in which an enquiry was conducted by the Tehsildar, Barkot, District Uttarkashi, who found that the income certificate given in favour of Vikram Singh (father of Km. Deepika) was procured on false ground and the fact is that he was already doing “contract work” with the Irrigation Department, which was not brought to the notice of the authority concerned earlier at the relevant time when the income certificate was issued in his favour. Consequently, the income certificate issued in favour of Vikram Singh (father of Km. Deepika) was cancelled by the authority concerned. Km. Consequently, the income certificate issued in favour of Vikram Singh (father of Km. Deepika) was cancelled by the authority concerned. Km. Deepika filed the writ petition (WPSS No. 1649 of 2015) for quashing of the cancelation order of her income certificate as well as notice asking her to show the means of her income, or her services will be terminated on the post of Mini Aganbari Karyakarti. Hence these two petitions are being heard together. 5. This Court is of the opinion that once the income certificate was cancelled, the petitioner i.e. Km. Deepika is not eligible for the post of Mini Aganwari Karyakarti, as she is not a member of a community which is having income of less than ‘1,300/- per month. 6. In any case, Km. Deepika has not been able to show before this Court that she has a BPL card in her favour. On the other hand, the petitioner – Smt. Beena Rana has been able to show that she has been declared below poverty line member by the authority concerned. 7. The case of Km. Deepika is that the income certificate of her father was cancelled without any basis, inasmuch as without explanation was called though not in writing from her and there are records, which show that at the relevant time father of Km. Deepika was doing contract work with the Irrigation Department. As Km. Deepika is unmarried, therefore, her income is to be determined by the income of his father. His income certificate has been duly cancelled. Hence, this contention of Km. Deepika is baseless. 8. In view of the above discussion, as far as WPSS No. 1649 of 2015 filed by Km. Deepika is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. However, considering that the income certificate of the respondent – Km. Deepika has been cancelled, the writ petition (WPSS No. 1925 of 2013) is hereby allowed. The order of appointment of Km. Deepika as Mini Aganwari Karyakarti in Bal Vikas Pariyaona, Block Naugaon, Uttarkashi is hereby quashed. Since the petitioner i.e. Smt. Beena Rana belongs to a family having income which is below the poverty line, therefore, she is much more in need for the job of Mini Aganwari Karyakarti and the Government Order provides that such family have to be given a preference in such matters. 10. Since the petitioner i.e. Smt. Beena Rana belongs to a family having income which is below the poverty line, therefore, she is much more in need for the job of Mini Aganwari Karyakarti and the Government Order provides that such family have to be given a preference in such matters. 10. Since it is an admitted fact that petitioner – Smt. Beena Rana is having the next higher marks, the authority concerned shall consider her name on the post of Mini Aganwari Karyakarti in the aforesaid centre.