Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1528 (HP)

Banti Devi v. State of H. P.

2019-10-16

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur in Case No. J-4/11, titled Smt. Banti Devi vs. Smt. Surendera, decided on 27.11.2012, whereby an appeal filed under Section 12 of the Anganwari Scheme/Guidelines against the alleged wrong selection of Smt. Surendera as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Berthin, stood dismissed, though not on merit. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that process was issued by the respondent-State to fill up the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Berthin. This process was initiated somewhere in the year 2007. Private respondent herein was selected in the selection process which was so initiated. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the present private respondent as an Anganwari Worker, petitioner herein preferred an appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. This appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority by holding that the husband of the selected candidate owned large property, meaning thereby that annual family income of the selected candidate was certainly more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. It appears that this order was further assailed by way of an appeal by the selected candidate in terms of the guidelines issued by the government for appointment of Anganwari Workers, which contained provisions for second appeal. It further appears from the record that the subsequent appeal filed by the selected candidate probably was allowed by the said Appellate Authority by holding that order passed by the first Appellate Authority was not sustainable in law as the factum of appeal having been preferred beyond the period of limitation was ignored. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed CWP No. 3892 of 2011 before this Court. Said petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2011. Hon'ble Division Bench while holding that the initial appeal stood filed by the petitioner within the period of limitation, remanded the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, for consideration of the same afresh. 5. It further appears from the record that during the course of hearing of the matter, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Case No. J-4/11, titled as Banti Devi vs. Smt. Surendera, ordered an inquiry into the income certificate issued in favour of the husband of the private respondent. 6. 5. It further appears from the record that during the course of hearing of the matter, learned Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur in Case No. J-4/11, titled as Banti Devi vs. Smt. Surendera, ordered an inquiry into the income certificate issued in favour of the husband of the private respondent. 6. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Jhandutta, who held that the income of the husband of the private respondent was Rs. 10200 + 6288 = 16488/- as on 06.05.2007. This inquiry report culminated into the issuance of office order dated 22.03.2011, vide which, Executive Magistrate, Tehsil Jhaundutta, held that earlier income certificate issued to the husband of the private respondent, in which, the actual family income was reflected as Rs. 7200/- per annum as on 06.05.2007 was wrong and same was ordered to be cancelled. 7. Feeling aggrieved, private respondent as well as her husband preferred an appeal under Section 28.21 of the H.P. Land Record Manual, which stood allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.6.2012 (Annexure P-7). The appellate Authority remanded the case back to the Tehsildar Jhandutta for inquiry afresh and in his absence, Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta, was directed to hold the fresh inquiry into the matter and thereafter, make a report. This order culminated into Inquiry Report dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) issued by Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta, in terms of which, annual family income of the private respondent was found to be Rs. 10,200/- as on 06.05.2007. After the said Inquiry Report was issued by Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, petitioner herein preferred an appeal afresh under Clause 12 of the Anganwari Scheme/Guidelines which stands dismissed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, by way of impugned order. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents appended with the petition. 9. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal so filed before it inter-alia on the ground that as primarily the grievance raised before the said authority was with regard to correctness of the Inquiry Report dated 15.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) and as said authority was not the appellate authority which could have gone into the correctness of the said inquiry report, therefore, it was not competent to decide the issue of income certificate/inquiry report pertaining thereto. 10. 10. In my considered view, the findings so returned by the learned Appellate Court are correct findings. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is basically now aggrieved by the issuance of the Inquiry Report by Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta (Annexure P-6), as per which, income of the family of the private respondent is stated to be Rs. 10,200/- as on 06.05.2007. Because this Inquiry Report is legally in existence, therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, then the option which was available to the petitioner was to have had preferred an appeal against the said Inquiry Report under the provisions of H.P. Land Record Manual, which admittedly was not done in the present case. Therefore, as the Authority which has now passed the impugned order, was not competent to go into the legality of the Inquiry Report so issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta, this Court does not finds any fault with the findings so returned by the said Authority while dismissing the appeal filed the present petitioner. 11. In view of discussion held herein above, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.