Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 290 (HP)

Ruma Devi v. State of H. P.

2017-04-01

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 24.2.2009(Annexure P-7), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, H.P., in Miscellaneous Appeal No.588 of 2008, whereby the Review Petition having been filed on behalf of respondent No.6 came to be allowed, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “That the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 passed by Divisional Commissioner Mandi annexure P-7 may kindly be set-aside and quashed and the respondent may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work against the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Sungarahan, Tehsil and District Mandi on the strength of annexure P-2 and annexure P-6.” 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that petitioner namely Ruma Devi was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Sungrahan vide appointment letter (Annexure P-2), dated 18.8.2007. Respondent No.6, being aggrieved with the selection of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who vide order (Annexure P-4), dated 23.6.2008, accepted the appeal and quashed and set-aside the selection of the petitioner and also ordered that next in merit be appointed as Anganwadi worker. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P-4), dated 23.6.2008, preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Anganwadi Rules and Notification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, laying therein challenge to the order dated 23.6.2008, which came to be registered as miscellaneous Appeal No.588 of 2008. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties as well as record made available by the authorities, accepted the appeal of the petitioner and accordingly, set-aside the order dated 23.6.2008. However, the aforesaid order (Annexure P- 6), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in the appeal preferred by the petitioner Smt. Ruma Devi, was not accepted by respondent No.6 and as such she preferred the Review Petition before the same authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner Mandi, Division Mandi, HP. 4. Perusal of Annexure P-7, suggests that learned Divisional Commissioner reviewed his earlier order (Annexure P-6), dated 24.12.2008 and vide order (Annexure P-7), dated 24.02.2009 upheld the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner by setting aside his own order, dated 24.12.2008 passed in the appeal having been preferred by the petitioner Smt. Ruma Devi 5. Dr. 4. Perusal of Annexure P-7, suggests that learned Divisional Commissioner reviewed his earlier order (Annexure P-6), dated 24.12.2008 and vide order (Annexure P-7), dated 24.02.2009 upheld the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner by setting aside his own order, dated 24.12.2008 passed in the appeal having been preferred by the petitioner Smt. Ruma Devi 5. Dr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order (Annexure P-7), dated 24.2.2009 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is without any jurisdiction because as per Anganwadi guidelines/Rules, Divisional Commissioner has no power, whatsoever, to review his/her own orders. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, he also made available copy of order dated 27.6.2009, passed by the same authority in some other case, whereby revision petition was dismissed on account of maintainability. Aforesaid order dated 27.6.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner is taken on record and is made part of the file. 6. Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel representing the respondent No.6 supported the order dated 24.2.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and stated that since there was a patent illegality in the order dated 24.12.2008, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, Divisional Commissioner has rightly reviewed his earlier order dated 24.12.2008. Mr. Palsra, further contended that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the Divisional Commissioner had no authority/power to review his order, the matter may be remanded back to him with the direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 8. Perusal of order dated 27.6.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi suggests that the Divisional Commissioner had no power/ authority to entertain the review petition against his own orders. In the aforesaid order, referred hereinabove, Divisional Commissioner himself concluded that perusal of the provisions of the scheme dated 11.4.2007 framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for the engagement of Anganwadi Worker/ Helper in the State reveals that there is no specific provision in the said scheme for review of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal. This Court also perused the scheme/guidelines (Annexure P-1) for the engagement of the Anganwadi workers/Helpers on honorary basis under ICDS scheme run by Social Justice and Empowerment Department, perusal whereof, nowhere suggests that power of review, if any, lies with the Divisional Commissioner to review his/her own orders passed in an appeal. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.6 was unable to point out any provision in the guidelines, referred hereinabove, with regard to power of review, if any, with the Divisional Commissioner. 9. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that Divisional Commissioner had no power/ authority to review his own order(Annexure P-6), dated 24.12.2008 passed in miscellaneous Appeal No.588 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner that too in the review petition preferred by respondent No.6 and as such, order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-7) deserves to be quashed and setaside. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set-aside. However, respondent No.6 is at liberty to lay challenge, if any, to the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal, in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.