Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1182 (HP)

Babija Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-10-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) For quashing impugned order at annexure P-6 dated 5.4.2012 whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been quashed and orders have been issued for appointment of an admittedly ineligible candidate as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Koraya, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. (ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to produce the record of the case before the Hon’ble Court. (iii) Any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The appointment of the petitioner was held to be bad by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur vide order dated 26.10.2009 primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Anganwari Worker, as her family income was in excess of the limit so prescribed in the Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers on honorary basis under ICDS Scheme run by Social Justice and Empowerment Department vide Notification, dated 06.07.2007, wherein the upper ceiling fixed was Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Findings so returned by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur have been affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Annexures P-5 and P-6 are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as while setting aside the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that her family income was in excess of Rs. 12,000/- per annum, there is no definite finding by either of the authorities as to what was the actual family income of the petitioner. She further submitted that the inquiry report which has been made the genesis for setting aside the appointment of the petitioner is also vague and cryptic, because even in the inquiry report, there is no definite finding as to what was the actual family income of the petitioner. On these basis, she submitted that Annexure P-6, dated 05.04.2012 be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. On these basis, she submitted that Annexure P-6, dated 05.04.2012 be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, on the other hand, has argued that there is no illegality or perversity with the orders so passed by the authorities below, because taking into consideration the extent of land which was owned by the family members of the petitioner, both these authorities have rightly come to be conclusion that the family income of the petitioner from all sources was in excess of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. He further submits that simply because the actual amount in this regard is not referred in the impugned orders, this does not mean that the said orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also defended the impugned orders on the same ground. He has further submitted that perusal of the impugned orders, which stand assailed before this Court demonstrates that the same are reasoned and speaking. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 7. Inquiry report so filed by Tehsildar, Shillai stands appended by respondent No. 5 alongwith her reply. A perusal of the said inquiry report demonstrates that Tehsildar, Shillai while holding that the family income of the petitioner was in excess of Rs. 12,000/- and while cancelling the income certificate which was so issued in favour of the petitioner, has not returned any finding as to what actually was the income of the petitioner. All that the said authority has stated in the inquiry report is that both Sh. Amar Singh and Sh. Ran Singh, who are stated to be fathers-in-law of petitioner own more than 70 bighas of land and it is on these basis that an inference has been drawn by the authority concerned that the family income of the petitioner was in excess of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. A perusal of Annexure P-5, dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur and Annexure P-6, dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur demonstrates that it is the said report of the Tehsildar that has been made genesis by both the authorities while returning the finding that the family income of the petitioner was in excess of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. 12,000/- per annum. In my considered view, while returning the said finding, both the authorities concerned erred in not appreciating that in his inquiry report, Tehsildar, Shillai had not given a definite finding as to what actually was the family income of the petitioner at the relevant time. 8. The Scheme envisages that in order to be eligible to be considered for appointment as Anganwari Worker, the family income of the concerned candidate at the relevant time should not be in excess of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Whether the family income of a candidate is in excess of Rs. 12,000/- per annum or not is not something which the authorities decide in abstract. For this, they rely upon the certificates which are so issued to the candidates by the authorities concerned. Now, incidentally, the income certificate which is so issued in favour of any candidate by the authority concerned is also not something in abstract and it is categorically mentioned in the same as to what is the exact income of the family of the concerned candidate. 9. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, it was incumbent upon the Tehsildar, Shillai to have had stated in the inquiry report while coming to the conclusion that the family income of the petitioner was in excess of Rs. 12,000/- annum as to what actually was the family income of the petitioner. Having failed to do so, both the Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur and Deputy Commissioner, Sirmary erred in relying upon the report so filed by the Tehsildar, Shillai. In view of a definitive finding having not been returned by the Tehsildar to the effect that as to what actually was the family income of the petitioner, which ought to have been so depicted in the order, the said report could not have been relied upon in the mode and manner in which it has been relied upon by the authorities concerned. 10. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. Orders Annexure P-5 dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur and Annexure P-6, dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur are quashed and set aside. Case is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal filed by Smt. Geeta Devi afresh by affording an opportunity of being heard to all the stakeholders. Orders Annexure P-5 dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur and Annexure P-6, dated 05.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur are quashed and set aside. Case is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal filed by Smt. Geeta Devi afresh by affording an opportunity of being heard to all the stakeholders. This Court hopes and expects that the appeal shall be decided by the Appellate Authority by passing a speaking and reasoned order. It is clarified that as Smt. Geeta Devi is presently performing the duties of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kuraya, she shall not be disturbed and shall be permitted to continue as such, subject to the orders, which shall be so passed on the appeal so filed by her before the authority concerned. Learned Appellate Authority, if it so deems fit, shall be at liberty to call for the fresh report from the competent authority qua the family income of the candidate concerned, as it was at the relevant time when the candidatures of the parties were considered for being appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kuraya. 11. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.