Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 277 (HP)

Rekha Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-08

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "a) To issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof to quash and set aside the impugned order Annexure P-4 dated 21.04.2012 to be null and void and nonest in the eyes of law as the same have been passed by ignoring the guidelines/directions of this Hon''ble Court. b) Direct the respondents to produce all the relevant record pertaining to the present case. c) Pass any writ, direction or order which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so that the justice can be done to the petitioner" 2. The issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. The moot issue is as to whether the Appellate Authority could have entertained and decided an appeal which was received by the said authority against the appointment of an Anganwari worker beyond the period of limitation so prescribed in the guidelines. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that respondent-State had initiated a process for appointment of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre, Thalog, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, for which, interviews were conducted on 18.07.2007, in which, petitioner as well as the private respondent appeared. Pursuant to the said interview, present petitioner was offered appointment vide appointment letter dated 03.08.2007, Annexure P-1. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, the private respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate on 29th August, 2007 i.e. beyond the limitation period of 15 days as provided in the policy alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the application. The appeal was not only entertained, but also adjudicated on merit. Vide order dated 18.06.2009, Annexure P-2, said authority held the appointment of the present petitioner to be bad in law. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal and Appellate Authority remanded the matter back for adjudication afresh. The appeal was decided by District Collector, Solan, again on merit vide order dated 21.4.2012, which stands assailed by way of this petition, vide which order, appointment of the petitioner again was held to be bad in law. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7. The appeal was decided by District Collector, Solan, again on merit vide order dated 21.4.2012, which stands assailed by way of this petition, vide which order, appointment of the petitioner again was held to be bad in law. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7. It is not in dispute that as per the guidelines in vogue, a person feeling aggrieved by the appointment of another person, either as an Anganwari Worker or an Anganwari Helper, could have assailed the said appointment by filing an appeal within a period of 15 days from the date when the said appointment was made. It is also not in dispute that an appeal was preferred by the private respondent in the present case beyond the period of said 15 days. 8. Hon''Ble Division Bench of this Court in Raksha Devi v. State of H.P. and ors, 2010 2 HimLR 964 , has clearly and categorically held that as the guidelines provided a period of 15 days for filing an appeal, the statutory authority in terms of the policy guidelines, i.e. the Appellate Authority does not has any power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and there is no power conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Hon''ble Division Bench has further held that the time period to file an appeal cannot be enlarged by the Appellate Authority beyond the period of 15 days. If the appeal has not been filed within the prescribed time, the appeal is only to be dismissed since the appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Para 19 of the judgment is quoted herein-below. "Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal." 9. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal." 9. In view of law so laid down by Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, in my considered view, the impugned order is not sustainable as though the Collector subsequently was deciding the appeal pursuant to matter having been remanded back by the Divisional Commissioner, still the fact remains that appeal initially preferred against the appointment of the petitioner was beyond the period of 15 days as provided in the guidelines. As such, as the appeal was filed beyond the period of 15 days, the Appellate Authority concerned had no power to entertain or adjudicate the same on merit. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to take all steps to implement appointment order dated 03.08.2007, Annexure P-1. Pending miscellaneous application(s) , if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.