Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1653 (HP)

Jaiwanti v. State of H. P.

2019-11-06

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated 12.9.2011 (Annexure P-4), whereby an appeal having been filed by respondent No. 4 Ms. Sarojana Devi, against the order passed by the Tehsildar Karsog, came to be decided. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that pursuant to interview held on 10.8.2007, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Shalani. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with selection of respondent No. 3, petitioner herein filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who while accepting the appeal quashed and set-aside the appointment of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 being dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi, bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 273 of 2008 under clause 12 of Scheme/Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Workers/ helpers. 3. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 20.2.2009 accepted the appeal and set-aside the order dated 22.2.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directed that respondent No. 3 Smt. Sarojana, who was appointed by the select committee may be allowed to continue. 4. Since petitioner was not satisfied with the aforesaid decision rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, she preferred CWP No. 2445 of 2009 before this court. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.6.2010, disposed of the aforesaid writ petition along with the connected matters with direction to the Deputy Commissioners/ Divisional Commissioners of districts/divisions to re-verify the income certificates furnished by the parties in those cases. 5. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, Tehsildar Karsog in terms of orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, conducted fresh inquiry with respect to income certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3. Vide report/order dated 3.1.2011, Tehsildar concerned found income certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 3 to be not genuine and accordingly, cancelled the same. The annual income of respondent No. 3 was found to be Rs. 12,330/-. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision rendered by the Tehsildar, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karsog, District Mandi (Annexure P-3) on the ground that inquiry report dated 3.1.2011 is not based upon proper appreciation of documents made available to the Tehsildar at the time of inquiry. 12,330/-. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision rendered by the Tehsildar, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before Sub-Divisional Magistrate Karsog, District Mandi (Annexure P-3) on the ground that inquiry report dated 3.1.2011 is not based upon proper appreciation of documents made available to the Tehsildar at the time of inquiry. Respondent No. 3 specifically averred in the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer that Tehsildar neither took into consideration material made available by her nor the earlier inquiry report submitted by the authority concerned. Sub-Divisional Officer, Karsog, Mandi, vide order dated 12.9.2011, though upheld the order of Tehsildar Karsog i.e. Annexure P-2, to the extent he had concluded that annual income of respondent No. 3 is Rs. 12,330/-, but observed that Rs. 1190/- received by Sh. Asam Singh, husband of respondent No. 3 in the month of October, 2000, cannot be considered as annual income of the appellant i.e. respondent No. 3 and her family because same was received much later after issuance of income certificate. He further observed in the order that sum of Rs. 1190/- pertains to work done by husband of the petitioner in June, 2006. 7. Since vide aforesaid order, Sub-Divisional Officer, Karsog held that sum of Rs. 1190/- received by husband of the appellant in the month of the October, 2007, could not be included in the annual income of respondent No. 3, annual income by the Tehsildar Karsog came to be Rs. 11,140/- (i.e. Rs. 12,330/- minus Rs. 1190/-) which is less than Rs. 12,000/-. Being aggrieved with aforesaid order, petitioner herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer. 8. Having carefully perused the reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 vis-a-vis rapat given by the Tehsildar Karsog (Annexure P-2), this Court is not in agreement with Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner that Sub-Divisional Officer, Karsog, wrongly returned finding that Tehsildar Karsog while determining annual income of respondent No. 3 could not have taken into consideration sum of Rs. 1190/- received by husband of the petitioner in the month of October, 2007. Mr. Chauhan, was unable to dispute that aforesaid sum of Rs. 1190/- though was actually received by Sh. 1190/- received by husband of the petitioner in the month of October, 2007. Mr. Chauhan, was unable to dispute that aforesaid sum of Rs. 1190/- though was actually received by Sh. Asam Singh, husband of the appellant-respondent No. 3 in the month of October, 2007 but same was for the work done by him in June, 2006. Since income certificate No. 2556/07 dated 10.5.2007 annexed by respondent No. 3 alongwith her application for the post of Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Shalani, pertains to year, 2007, Sub-Divisional Officer, Karsog rightly observed that money, if any, received in the year, 2007 qua the work done by the husband of respondent No. 3 in June, 2006 ought not have taken into consideration by the Tehsildar while calculating the income. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as document/evidence led on record by respondent No. 3 and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present petition fails and dismissed being devoid of any merits. Interim order if any, stands vacated.