Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1899 (HP)

Urmila Devi v. State Of H P

2019-12-11

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for following relief:- "That the impugned order/ inquiry dated 11.4.2011 passed by respondent No.3 contained in Annexure P1 as well as the order dated 24.11.2011 contained in Annexure P-2 passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari." 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner Smt. Urmila Devi was appointed as Anganwadi worker in Anganwadi Centre, Upper Alsu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP on 1st October, 2010. However, respondent No.5, Smt. Sunita Devi, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., under Clause 12 of the guidelines for the selection of Anganwadi worker. Aforesaid appeal filed by respondent No.5 ultimately came to be dealt and decided by Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Mandi, H.P., who vide order dated 7.1.2011, directed the Tehsildar, Sundernagar to conduct inquiry qua the income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Tehsildar, Sundernagar after having conducted inquiry submitted his report vide communication dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure P-1), wherein he concluded that annual income of the petitioner is more than Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Vide aforesaid report Tehsildar, Sundernagar also held that income of respondent No.5 is Rs.14000/- per annum, which is less then prescribed limit of Rs.20,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid report submitted by the Tehsildar, Sundernagar, petitioner herein preferred an appeal bearing case No.5 of 2011 in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., however aforesaid appeal having been filed by the petitioner, came to be rejected vide order dated 24.11.2011. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the relief, as has been reproduced hereinabove. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record vis-a-vis impugned order dated 24.11.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., this Court finds no force in the argument advanced by Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner that Tehsildar, Sundernagar while computing the income of the petitioner wrongly took into consideration income of the other family members. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner that Tehsildar, Sundernagar while computing the income of the petitioner wrongly took into consideration income of the other family members. Bare perusal of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Sundernagar (Annexure P-1), nowhere suggests that he while assessing income of the petitioner took into consideration the income of other family members, rather Tehsildar Sundernagar having taken note of the fact that husband of the petitioner pays sum of Rs.15,348/-Per annum on account of the premium of insurance policies, proceeded to hold that income of the petitioner is more than Rs.20,000/- per annum. There is no mention, if any, with regard to income, if any, of the other family members of the petitioner in the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Sundernagar. Otherwise also, there was no occasion for the Tehsildar, Sundernagar to take into consideration the income of other family members of the petitioner, when she herself took a stance before the authority concerned that she alongwith her husband separated from the family of her father-in-law in the year, 2006. Similarly, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the petitioner that court below wrongly decided the case of the petitioner in terms of the policy of the year, 2007, whereas it ought to have decided the case of the petitioner in terms of policy of the year, 2010. As per policy of the year, 2010, question with regard to status of the family is to be ascertained on the basis of the notice displayed by the Gram Panchayat concerned on 1st January of the recruitment year. 5. In the case at hand, no doubt selection to the post of Anganwadi worker, against which petitioner was selected was initiated in the year, 2010 and as such, learned counsel representing the petitioner may be right in contending that policy of the year, 2010 was applicable. If it is presumed and accepted that the policy of year, 2010 was applicable in the case of the petitioner, even in that eventuality no fault can be found with the report submitted by the Tehsildar, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., who admittedly pursuant to the directions issued by the Additional District Magistrate,Mandi, H.P., conducted inquiry and took into consideration the income of the husband of the petitioner only and not of other family members, from whom petitioner allegedly separated in the year, 2006. 6. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit alongwith pending application(s), if any.