Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1072 (HP)

Suman Thakur v. State of H. P.

2019-08-01

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order, dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P-3), passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kullu in Case No. 07/ADC/2016, titled as Smt. Sulochana vs. State of H.P. and Others, vide which, an appeal filed by respondent No. 5 herein against the appointment of petitioner as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Jhalli under Gram Panchayat Neether, District Kullu, H.P. was allowed and the appointment of petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Jhalli was set aside with immediate effect. 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are as under: Applications were invited by the Authority concerned for filling up one post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Neeher, District Kullu, H.P. in the year 2016. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 applied for the said post. Interviews for selecting the candidate were conducted by the Selection Committee on 02.08.2016 in the office of Child Development Project Officer Neether, District Kullu. On the basis of recommendations of the said Selection Committee, petitioner was offered appointment as Anganwari Worker in the said Centre and she joined as such in compliance to the appointment letter dated 03.08.2016 on the said date itself. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, an appeal was preferred by respondent No. 5 under Section 12 of the Notification dated 11.04.2007, i.e. the Notification issued by the Government containing the Scheme/Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Worker/Helper on honorarium basis under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. 4. The appointment of the petitioner was, inter-alia, assailed on the ground that her income was more than the prescribed limit for being considered for appointment against the said post under the Guidelines. The case of the appellant before the Appellate Authority was that Income Certificate produced by the petitioner dated 01.08.2016, issued by Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Neether to the effect that annual income of the family of petitioner was Rs. 35,000/- was based on wrong information and was a result of concealment of facts, because family income of the petitioner was about rupees One Lac annually. As per the appellant, father of the petitioner was a Member of Jhalli Dugadh Utpadak Samiti, Village Jhalli and was earning Rs. 26,501/- annually from the business. In addition, he had also earned wages of Rs. 10,000/- from MNREGA. As per the appellant, father of the petitioner was a Member of Jhalli Dugadh Utpadak Samiti, Village Jhalli and was earning Rs. 26,501/- annually from the business. In addition, he had also earned wages of Rs. 10,000/- from MNREGA. Petitioner herself was serving as a TGT Teacher in Laureate Public School, Chawai and was earning salary of Rs. 24,000/- per annum. All these facts were concealed by the petitioner when she procured the Income Certificate, on the basis of which, she gained employment. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the income of the petitioner was got verified from Naib Tehsildar, Neether and report of Naib Tehsilar was placed before the Appellate Authority. Said report of Naib Tehsildar dated 18.02.2017 demonstrated that annual income of the family of the petitioner was Rs. 1,00,975/- per annum and Income Certificate dated 01.08.2016, on the basis of which, selection was gained by the petitioner, was found to have been obtained on the basis of concealed facts. On these bases, the Appellate Authority set aside the appointment of the petitioner by allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 by holding that the appointment was gained by the petitioner against the post of Anganwari Worker on the basis of Income Certificate which was wrong and which was rightly set aside/cancelled by Naib Tehsildar in his inquiry subsequently. On these bases, the Appellate Authority set aside the appointment of the petitioner against the post of Anganwari Worker at Jhalli Centre with immediate effect and directed that the candidate, who was at S. No. 1 in the waiting list, be appointed against the said post. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer was based on wrong calculations, as the Inquiry Officer erred in including honorarium being paid to the mother of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper to the tune of Rs. 1800/- per month in the annual income of the family. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer was based on wrong calculations, as the Inquiry Officer erred in including honorarium being paid to the mother of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper to the tune of Rs. 1800/- per month in the annual income of the family. He further argued that the Inquiry Officer also erred in taking into consideration the alleged salary which the petitioner was getting from Laureate Public School, Chawai without obtaining any Income Certificate from the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the School, where the petitioner was working as a TGT Teacher on temporary basis for a period of 5/6 months only in the concerned year. He has further argued that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that basis of Family Income arrived at by Naib Tehsildar were completely wrong and his findings that the father of the petitioner was owner in possession of land measuring 02-05-00 bighas, from where he was having income of Rs. 7875/- per year, were also incorrect and on these bases, he has argued that as the order passed by the Appellate Authority was solely based upon the report of Inquiry Officer, the impugned order was liable to be set aside and appointment of the petitioner was liable to be upheld. 8. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there was no infirmity with the impugned order, because the Appellate Authority after correct appreciation of the material on record, which included the report of the Inquiry Officer, has set aside the appointment of the petitioner, because she had gained said appointment by procuring a wrong Income Certificate. 9. Learned counsel for the private respondent has also supported the contention of learned Additional Advocate General and in addition, he has argued that the petitioner had gained employment on the strength of a wrong Income Certificate, which she obtained by providing incorrect information to the Authority concerned and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the record of the case. 11. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the record of the case. 11. It is not in dispute that as per the Guidelines issued by the respondent-Government, in order to be eligible to be considered for appointment against the post of Anganwari Worker, only those incumbents are eligible whose annual income at the relevant time was not more than Rs. 35,000/- per month. 12. When the appointment of petitioner was challenged by way of an appeal, report of Naib Tehsildar was sought with regard to the correct annual income of the petitioner. Said report is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the report demonstrates that the income of the family of the petitioner was assessed by the officer concerned, i.e. Naib Tehsildar Neether, District Kullu to be Rs. 1,00,975/-. This figure was arrived at by him by taking into consideration the factum of the petitioner serving as a TGT Teacher in Laureate Public School Chawai from August, 2015 to December, 2015 and thereafter from February, 2016 to July, 2016, i.e. for a period of 11 months for which she was getting emoluments to the tune of Rs. 6500/- per month. Authority also took into consideration the income which the family was earning annually from the land owned by the father of the petitioner, which income was assessed at Rs. 7875/- per month, as also the honorarium which the mother of the petitioner was getting on account of serving as Anganwari Worker, which from August, 2015 to July, 2016 was assessed to be Rs. 21,600/- @ Rs. 1800/- per month. 13. When the matter was being heard on the previous dates, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that Naib Tehsildar had erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was getting wages of Rs. 6500/- per month for serving as a TGT Teacher, as she was not given any emolument for serving as a TGT Teacher in the School. On this, on 18.06.2019, this Court had passed the following order: "Heard for some time. Before proceeding in the matter any further, petitioner is directed to file an affidavit as to from which and till which date, she served in Laureate Public School, Chawai, what are her qualifications and what were the emoluments paid to her while serving in the said School. Before proceeding in the matter any further, petitioner is directed to file an affidavit as to from which and till which date, she served in Laureate Public School, Chawai, what are her qualifications and what were the emoluments paid to her while serving in the said School. Let the needful be positively done within two weeks. List on 22.07.2019." 14. In compliance thereof, the petitioner has filed an affidavit, dated 23.06.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under: "1. That the applicant/petitioner has served the Laureate Public School, Chawai w.e.f. (Financial Year 2015-16), May, 2015 to December, 2015 and February 2016 and in the Financial Year 2016-17 from March, 2016 to July, 2016 and the deponent was not paid anything. The deponent was signing the papers to the tune of Rs. 4150/- initially and then Rs. 6500/- PM. The deponent was signing the papers for getting the teaching experience. 2. The deponent is BA, MA and B.Ed." A perusal of the averments made in this affidavit demonstrate that the petitioner herself has admitted that she was signing the papers to the effect that she was getting wages initially @ Rs. 4150 per month and thereafter @ Rs. 6500/- per month for serving as a TGT Teacher in the School. However, she has qualified this by mentioning that she was signing the papers for getting teaching experience, but was not actually paid anything. 15. In my considered view, the affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein she has admitted that she has signed the papers to the effect that she was initially getting monthly emoluments of Rs. 4150/- per month and then Rs. 6500/- per month for teaching as TGT Teacher in Laureate Public School Chawai, itself render her ineligible to be considered for the post of Anganwari Worker. Her bald assertion that she was signing these papers only for getting teaching experience deserves outright rejection. Incidentally, in the main petition, there is no averment made while laying challenge to the report of Naib Tehsildar that the petitioner in fact was not receiving any salary for working as a TGT Teacher in Laureate Public School Chawai. All that is mentioned in the petition with regard to the report of the Naib Tehsildar is that he made wrong assessment of her salary from the Laureate Public School Chawai without obtaining the Income Certificate from the Drawing and Disbursing Authority. All that is mentioned in the petition with regard to the report of the Naib Tehsildar is that he made wrong assessment of her salary from the Laureate Public School Chawai without obtaining the Income Certificate from the Drawing and Disbursing Authority. This clearly demonstrates that the stand of the petitioner now as is reflected in the affidavit that in reality she was not receiving any wages for serving as a TGT Teacher in Laureate Public School Chawai, though she was signing papers qua receipt of the salary, is nothing but an afterthought. 16. Be that as it may, as it is evident from the record that the income of the family of the petitioner from all sources was in excess of Rs. 35,000/- per month, this Court does not finds any infirmity with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, vide which the appointment of the petitioner has been set aside on the ground that she gained employment against the post of Anganwari Worker on the basis of an Income Certificate which was obtained by furnishing incorrect information. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the factum of her mother being engaged as an Anganwari Worker and her drawing an honorarium of Rs.1800/- per month has not been denied by the petitioner. Not only this, the income which the family was getting from the immovable property, as has been assessed by the Naib Tehsildar, has also not been proved to be an incorrect figure by the petitioner. It is not her case that she was not associated by the Naib Tehsildar at the time of inquiry. It is an admitted position that she was serving as a TGT Teacher in Laureate Public School Chawai. Whereas in the writ petition, the petitioner concealed her emoluments as a TGT Teacher, when she was directed by this Court to spell out the same by way of an affidavit, though she stated that on papers initially she was receiving Rs. 4150/- and thereafter Rs. 6500/- per month, but then she qualified the same that in reality, she was not getting anything and she was only working there for teaching experience, which stand, as already mentioned above, is nothing but an afterthought to substantiate the same. 17. 4150/- and thereafter Rs. 6500/- per month, but then she qualified the same that in reality, she was not getting anything and she was only working there for teaching experience, which stand, as already mentioned above, is nothing but an afterthought to substantiate the same. 17. In view of the above, as this Court does not finds any infirmity with the impugned order, dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Appellate Authority, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.