Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 748 (HP)

Anita Kumari v. State of H. P.

2016-05-11

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J.(Oral): The present writ petition has been filed inter alia praying for the following relief:- “(A) That this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the writ in nature of certiorari may be issued and the impugned orders passed by the appellate authorities dated 6.5.2008 and 19.3.2009, contained in Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 respectively may be quashed and set aside and the selection/ appointment of petitioner may be upheld.” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Jangla, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P., pursuant to a process undertaken by the concerned authority to engage Anganwari Worker in the said Centre. Besides the present petitioner, other eligible persons also participated in the said process of engagement, which also included present respondent No. 4 Archana Kumari. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said engagement of the petitioner, said order was challenged by way of an appeal by respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, in Case No. J-114/07 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 vide his decision dated 06.05.2008 and set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Jnagla. 4. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner will demonstrate that what weighed with the said authority for setting aside the engagement of the present petitioner as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Jangla, was the fact that on record there was a Pass Book of joint account of Yash Pal and Anita Kumari i.e. the present petitioner and her husband, of H.P. State Cooperative Bank, Geherwin Branch, issued on 15.03.2003, as per entries contained wherein, monetary transactions had taken place to the tune of Rs.63,230/-. An amount of Rs.26,690/- was deposited on 04.12.2005 and an amount of Rs. 30,566/- was deposited on 16.03.2006. Besides this, another amount of Rs.29,342/- was again deposited on 16.03.2006. On the basis of the said financial transactions, the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that present petitioner certainly had good financial means and was having an annual income in excess of Rs.12,000/- per annum, which was the maximum income limit prescribed in the policy framed by the Government for engagement of Anganwari Workers. Accordingly, the appointment of the present petitioner was ordered to be set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. Accordingly, the appointment of the present petitioner was ordered to be set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner filed an appeal under Rule-12 of the Guidelines/Scheme for the appointment of Anganwari Worker before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi. Vide order dated 19.05.2008 in case No. 427/2008 dated 19.05.2008, Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, allowed the appeal filed by the present petitioner by holding that the procedure which was adopted by the Deputy Commissioner to assess the family income of the petitioner by ignoring other aspects of the case was not justifiable in law and further the authority had not assessed properly the income of respondent No. 4. 6. Accordingly, on these grounds, the appeal filed by the present petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner was allowed by the said authority. 7. However, strangely while allowing the appeal so filed by the present petitioner, respondent No. 6 further directed that fresh interview of all the candidates who appeared earlier at the time of selection be conducted within a period of one month by the Selection Committee. It is against the said directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner that the petitioner has filed the present petition. 8. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Divisional Commissioner has erred in directing the Selection Committee to hold fresh interview of all the candidates who had earlier participated in the selection process, in view of the fact that when the said authority had agreed with the contentions of the present petitioner and allowed her appeal, then the natural corollary of the acceptance of her appeal ought to have been that she should have been allowed to continue to serve as Anganwari Worker at the concerned Centre. Mr. Khajuria has further submitted that strangely on one hand the Divisional Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by holding that the conclusions arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner were not reasonable and rightly so, but on the other hand, he himself has erred by ordering that the candidates who had appeared earlier in the selection process should be invited afresh for interview, without any reason whatsoever. This part of the order, according to him was per se bad. Accordingly, Mr. This part of the order, according to him was per se bad. Accordingly, Mr. Khajuria has prayed that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner to the extent he has ordered fresh interview of all the candidates who appeared earlier, is liable to be quashed and set aside with issuance of mandamus to the respondents to permit the present petitioner to continue to serve as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Jangla. He has also argued that the income certificate issued to the petitioner has not been challenged by respondent No. 4 before the appropriate authority at all. 9. Mr. R.S. Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has submitted that respondent No. 4 is now no more interested to be engaged as Anganwari Worker where the present petitioner is serving because after her marriage she is residing with her husband and as per policy of the appointment of Anganwari Workers, she is now ineligible to be engaged at the Centre where the petitioner is presently working. 10. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, has supported the order which has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner and contended that though the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed to the extent that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was found to be bad in law by the Divisional Commissioner but the second part of the order which has been passed by the said authority stands issued in the larger interest so that there is transparency and fair play in the appointment of Anganwari Worker. He has further argued that even otherwise no prejudice was going to be caused to the petitioner because it is not as if the Divisional Commissioner had ordered that she could not participate in the fresh selection processes. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 12. In my considered view, once the Divisional Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, then he ought to have taken the said order to its logical conclusion by ordering continuation of engagement of petitioner. 12. In my considered view, once the Divisional Commissioner had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, then he ought to have taken the said order to its logical conclusion by ordering continuation of engagement of petitioner. A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner will further demonstrate that there is no reasoning given as to why he had issued the directions after allowing the appeal that fresh interviews be held of all the candidates who had participated in the selection process. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner has not returned any adverse finding on the merit of the selection undertaken by the Committee. In other words, this demonstrates that the second part of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner from which the present petitioner is aggrieved was beyond the scope of the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner before him. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner to the extent he has directed to hold fresh interview of all the candidates who appeared earlier at the time of selection is quashed and set aside and the respondents authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to serve as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Jangla. 14. Petition is accordingly allowed in above terms. No order as to cost. Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, also stands disposed of.