Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 132 (HP)

Savita v. State of H. P.

2017-03-07

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Scheme for engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers under ICDS, whereby her appointment as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad was set aside, approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking therein following reliefs:- (i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued by quashing impugned order dated 26.9.2011, Annexure P-4, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, i.e. respondent No.3, being illegal and arbitrary. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to continue the petitioner to work as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad, District Kangra, H.P. (iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (iv) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout. (v) Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Briefly the facts, as emerged from record, are that petitioner, persuant to interview conducted by respondents, was appointed as Anganwari Worker in the month of August 2007 at Anganwari Centre Bhurlahad, District Kangra H.P. vide Annexure P-1. Respondent No.5, being aggrieved with appointment of petitioner, preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority under the Scheme for engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers, which came to be registered as appeal No. 110/Kangra. However, Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of respondent No.5 on the ground that petitioner is not resident of survey area of Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad and accordingly, quashed the selection of petitioner. Being dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by Appellate Authority, petitioner preferred second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala bearing No. 112 of 2009. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 21.6.2010, dismissed the appeal having been preferred by petitioner and directed the authorities concerned to conduct fresh interview to select an eligible candidate as Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre in question strictly in accordance with Scheme/Guidelines issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. 3. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 21.6.2010, dismissed the appeal having been preferred by petitioner and directed the authorities concerned to conduct fresh interview to select an eligible candidate as Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre in question strictly in accordance with Scheme/Guidelines issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. 3. It further emerge from the record that petitioner being dissatisfied with rejection of her appeal by Divisional Commissioner preferred a civil writ petition bearing No. 4051 of 2010 before this Court seeking quashment of orders dated 21.6.2010 and 24.2.2009 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala as well as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala respectively. However, the fact remains that aforesaid petition, having been preferred by petitioner, was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.7.2010, strictly in terms of its earlier judgment rendered in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 on 17.5.2010. Perusal of judgment dated 17.5.2010, passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010, clearly suggests that Court, while delivering judgment considered various issues and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the case afresh, in the light of clarification/directions/observations made in judgment. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras of aforesaid judgment, which directly deal with proposition/question involved in present case. ”10. Another dispute pertains to the feeding area. Clause 4(a) of the Guidelines provides for the same, which reads as follows:- “Resident of the village (in case of Rural Area)/ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area.” 11. A contention is raised by some of the petitioners that the feeding area has to be understood as the survey area. We are afraid the contention as per the policy as it stood at the relevant time cannot be accepted. The policy at that time only prescribed that the person should be the resident of the village/ward, depending upon the rural or the urban area, as the case may be, where the centre is located. It is sufficient if the applicant belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area. The eligibility has to be understood as on the date of the application, in terms of the policy, which ruled the field at the relevant time. It is sufficient if the applicant belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area. The eligibility has to be understood as on the date of the application, in terms of the policy, which ruled the field at the relevant time. Needless to say, that in case there is no candidate available from the respective feeding areas, prescribed under clause 4(a), it is open to the authorities to exercise its power under Clause 11 of the Policy Guidelines for appropriate relaxation.” 4. In the aforesaid background, matter was taken up afresh for consideration by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. It emerges from order dated 26.9.2011 that persuant to aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, respondents No. 5 and 6 preferred afresh appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, which came to be registered as appeal No. 30 of 2011, laying therein challenge to the appointment of petitioner herein. It also emerges from order, referred above, that respondent No. 5, who happened to be appellant in appeal, referred above, failed to put in appearance despite several opportunities and accordingly, appeal on her behalf was ordered to be filed, whereas respondent No. 6, who happened to be appellant No. 2 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, raised issues of survey/feeding area and income. 5. Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 26.9.2011, came to conclusion that petitioner is not resident of survey/feeding area and village also and as such, her appointment is against the guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers and accordingly, set aside the appointment given to petitioner. Appellate Authority also held respondent No. 6, Raksha Devi, who was next in the merit, ineligible for appointment. In the aforesaid background, petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner preferred instant writ petition seeking reliefs, as have been mentioned hereinabove. 6. Ms.Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that impugned order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner purportedly in compliance of order dated 26.7.2010 passed in CWP No. 4051 of 2010, deserves to be quashed and set aside being contrary to very spirit of judgment referred hereinabove. 6. Ms.Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that impugned order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner purportedly in compliance of order dated 26.7.2010 passed in CWP No. 4051 of 2010, deserves to be quashed and set aside being contrary to very spirit of judgment referred hereinabove. With a view to substantiate her aforesaid argument, she made this Court to travel through para 10 of judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 to demonstrate that candidates belonging to feeding villages/wards of Anganwari area were held to be eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. She further stated that as per policy, in vogue at that relevant time, person should be the resident of village/ward, depending upon the rural or urban area, as the case may be, where the Centre is located. She further stated that Additional Deputy Commissioner, while passing impugned order, again placed reliance on survey register to conclude that petitioner resides out of feeding area of Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad and as such, impugned order being contrary to law laid down by this Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr.P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the impugned order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner. He vehemently argued that bare perusal of aforesaid order clearly suggests that case of petitioner was considered afresh in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court and authority concerned, after summoning the report of concerned Patwari, proceeded to hold that appointment of petitioner was against the guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers. He also supported the appointment of respondent No.5, Sudesh Kumari, by stating that she was rightly held to be entitled for appointment as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Bhurlahad, because she was resident of Bhurlahad, which was feeding area/village of Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record. 9. The Division Bench of this Court specifically in paras No. 10 and 11 of judgment passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 held that as per policy, in vogue at that relevant time, person should be resident of village/ward, depending upon the rural or urban area, as the case may be, where Centre is located. 9. The Division Bench of this Court specifically in paras No. 10 and 11 of judgment passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 held that as per policy, in vogue at that relevant time, person should be resident of village/ward, depending upon the rural or urban area, as the case may be, where Centre is located. Learned Division Bench further held that it is sufficient, if the candidate belongs to feeding villages/wards of Anganwari area. While perusing record of the case during proceedings, this Court could lay its hand to supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No.4, in compliance to order dated 9.10.2012 passed by this Court. (Page 42 of Paper Book) and it would be apt to reproduce following paras of supplementary affidavit:- “1. I, Chanderlekha Kapoor wife of Shri Joginder Paul Kapoor, Aged 56 years, posted as Chief Development Project Officer, Kangra, District Kangra do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under:- That the present petition was listed before the Hon’ble Court on 9.10.2012 when the Hon’ble Court passed the following order “Smt. Chanderlekha Kapoor, the 4th respondent is present in person and had produced the record. The petitioner is resident of Balol, in that village there existed three Anganwari center, namely Bhurlahad, Degarlahad and Balol Khas. The record produced by the 4th respondent does not specifically pinpoint the feeder area under each Anganwari center. The 4th respondent to file supplementary affidavit stating as to whether that point of village Balol, where the house of petitioner is situated, falls under the feeder area of Anganwari Center Bhurlahad or not. If not, under feeder area of which Anganwari Center that part of the village falls.” 2. That in this regard it is respectfully submitted that, that part of village Balol where the house of the petitioner is situated does not fall under the feeder area of Bhurlahad. It is further respectfully submitted that, that part of village falls under the Anganwari center Balol Khas.” Perusal of aforesaid affidavit clearly suggests that this Court had directed respondent No. 4, who had come along with record, specifically to pinpoint the feeder area under which Anganwari Centre is situated. Respondent No. 4, in aforesaid affidavit, has specifically stated that part of village Balol, where house of petitioner is situated, does not fall under feeder area of Bhurlahad. She further stated that that part of village falls under Anganwari Centre Balol Khas. Respondent No. 4, in aforesaid affidavit, has specifically stated that part of village Balol, where house of petitioner is situated, does not fall under feeder area of Bhurlahad. She further stated that that part of village falls under Anganwari Centre Balol Khas. Though petitioner, by way of rejoinder, made an attempt to rebut the aforesaid assertion made by respondent No. 4 in her supplementary affidavit but interestingly placed no document on record suggestive of fact that her residence/village falls within feeder area of Anganwari Centre Bhurlahad. Mr.Anjali Soni Verma, with a view to refute aforesaid contention of respondent No. 4, invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-6 i.e. certificate issued by Pardhan, G.P. Balol, Block Development Office, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra (H.P.) to demonstrate that village Balol Khas, to which petitioner belongs falls under Gram Panchayat Balol and as such, she was rightly offered appointment as Anganwari Worker at Bhurlahad. This Court, after carefully examining the material adduced by respective parties, is not inclined to accept aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel representing the petitioner, because it clearly emerge from the impugned order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner that with a view to verify the residence of petitioner herein and location of Anganwari, report of Shri Rakesh Kumar, Patwari at Patwar Circle Balol was summoned, who categorically stated that Anganwari Centre Bhurlahad situates in Mohal Bhurlahad, whereas residence of present petitioner falls in Mohal Mahulahad. At the cost of repetition, it may again be stated that respondent No. 4, in her supplementary affidavit, has specifically stated that house of petitioner does not fall under feeder area of Bhurlahad and as such this Court sees no reason to interfere in impugned order, having been passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, which otherwise appears to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced by respective parties as well as observations made by this Court in CWP No. 4051 of 2010. 10. Consequently, in view of above, this Court sees no merit in present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous applications if any.