Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1565 (HP)

Smt Chandni v. State of H. P.

2019-10-22

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that process was initiated to appoint an Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Gagal-II, District Mandi, H.P. The process was so initiated somewhere in the year 2015. Interviews were held on 17.01.2015, leading to the appointment of Smt. Hem Lata (respondent No.6) against the post in issue. 2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner herein filed an appeal under Clause-12 of the Scheme/Guidelines framed by the respondents/State for appointment to the post of Anganwari Helper. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-1 i.e. order dated 31.12.2015, by holding that as per record, the appellant as well as the selected candidates were permanent residents of village Gagal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. and thus as both were residents of the same village and fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down in para 4 of the Guidelines, they were eligible for the post of Anganwari Worker (in village Gagal) for both the Anganwari Centres situated i.e. Upper Gagal and Gagal-II. 3. Learned Appellate Court arrived at this conclusion by holding that both the Anganwari Centres were situated in the same village i.e. village Gagal. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the findings returned by the learned Appellate Authority are not sustainable in law as learned Appellate Authority has not appreciated the statements which were so made before it by the witnesses who appeared before the Authority in its correct prospective. Learned counsel has argued that the Authority has erred in not appreciating that before the process of appointment was initiated by the State Government to fill up the post in question, a Survey List was prepared in the month of December, 2014, with the intent to reflect the private respondents as falling in the feeder category of the Anganwari Centre. On these basis, he has argued that petition be allowed and the appointment of private respondents be set aside. 6. On these basis, he has argued that petition be allowed and the appointment of private respondents be set aside. 6. Leaned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand has argued that the Survey Report was prepared in the month of December, 2014, inconsonance with the factual position as it existed and the contention of the petitioner that the list was prepared with an ulterior motive, is completely incorrect as except the bald assertion so made by the petitioner, there was nothing produced on record by petitioner to prove the said fact. She further submits that there is no infirmity with the findings returned by the learned Appellate Authority that both the petitioner and the selected candidates in fact belonged to the feeder areas, because it is a matter of record that both the ladies belonged to village Gagal and at the relevant time women residing in village Gagal, who otherwise fulfilled the eligible criteria, were eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari worker or Anganwari Helper in two Anganwari Centres, which were at village Gagal at the relevant time i.e. Upper Gagal Anganwari Centre and Gagal-II Anganwari Centre. 7. Learned Counsel for the private respondents has adopted the submissions so made by learned Deputy Advocate General. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the State alongwith its reply has placed on record copy of the Servey List which was so prepared by Child Development Officer Sadar. In the said Survey List, which is appended with the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 (Annexure R-1) name of petitioner is reflected at serial No.12 and that of the selected candidates at serial No.76. On a pointed query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the Survey Report was not challenged by the petitioner before any superior authority. However, he reiterated that reflection of the name of the selected candidate at serial No.76 in the said Survey List was against the factual reality. 10. On a pointed query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the Survey Report was not challenged by the petitioner before any superior authority. However, he reiterated that reflection of the name of the selected candidate at serial No.76 in the said Survey List was against the factual reality. 10. In my considered view, whether or not the Survey List has been prepared by the Child Development Project Officer, Sadar, as per the spot position, is a seriously disputed question of fact which this Court cannot adjudicate in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, because this is a Survey List which has been prepared by a responsible government servant, this Court has no reasons to disbelieve the same. 11. Of course, it was always open to the petitioner to have had demonstrated before the appropriate authority that the Survey List, on the basis of which selection has been made, was prepared incorrectly, however, this has not been done by the petitioner. Moreover, a careful perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that there is no malafide alleged by the petitioner against any of the authorities in the Courts regarding preparation of the said Survey List. 12. In this view of the matter, when admittedly, name of the selected candidates alongwith the petitioner was existing in the Survey List which reflected the name of eligible candidates residing in the feeder area of the Anganwari Centre in issue, no infirmity can be attributed to the order which has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority holding that selection of the selected candidate could not be faulted with as it was evident from the record that present petitioner as well as selected candidate were permanent residents of village Gangal, Tehsil Bahl, and were eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari Centre located in village Gagal. 13. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.