Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 971 (HP)

Chandra Kumari v. State Of H. P.

2019-07-17

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- There was one post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Ropa, District Mandi, H.P. Applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment against the said post. The Selection Committee conducted interview of 13 candidates, who had applied for the said post, which included the present petitioner, as also the private respondent. The Selection Committee found the petitioner eligible for the post in issue and she was offered appointment vide order dated 12.4.2016 and she joined her duties as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Ropa on 12.4.2016. 2. The appointment was assailed by respondent No.5 by way of an appeal, provided under Clause 12 of the Scheme/Guidelines for the post of Anganwari Helper under ICDS Scheme/programme, inter-alia on the ground that the income of family of the petitioner was above the prescribed limit of Rs.20,000/- per annum. The petitioner stood awarded three marks wrongly for possessing experience certificate of a Nursery Teacher by the Selection Committee. The certificate produced by the petitioner of having passed diploma in Nursery Teacher Training was not a genuine certificate, as no such institute existed, which the petitioner had purportedly obtained the said certificate. At the time when the petitioner purportedly passed the diploma in Nursery Teacher Training, she was effectively a regular student of B.A. Class and it was not possible for her to do two regular courses simultaneously. 3. Vide impugned order dated 20.3.2017, passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, Distirct Mandi, H.P. in appeal No.11/16, titled as Smt. Hem Lata Versus State of H.P. and others, the appeal so filed by respondent No.5 herein, has been allowed and appointment of the present petitioner has been set aside. Learned Appellate Authority has directed that appointment be offered against the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Ropa, to the next in merit. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as also the complete pleadings. 6. Learned Appellate Authority has directed that appointment be offered against the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Ropa, to the next in merit. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as also the complete pleadings. 6. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the learned Appellate Authority set aside the appointment of the present petitioner by holding that the certificate of experience furnished by the petitioner, on the basis of which, three marks were assigned to the petitioner, was in fact not a genuine certificate as it stood proved from the information provided by the Public Information Officer, H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala (Kangra), vide his letter No. HB/RTI/2016-5524 dated 10th June, 2016 that the Career Model School Bhangrotu, Village and Post Office Bhangrotu, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., did not exist. It is pertinent to mention here that on the strength of this certificate, vide which petitioner claimed to be having teaching experience, the Selection Committee had awarded three marks to the petitioner in terms of the scheme under which she was appointed as an Anganwari Worker. Learned Appellate Authority, further held that the certificate submitted by the petitioner regarding Nursery Teacher Training Course from Mother Teresa School of Teachers Education for the session 2011- 12, was also suspicious as there was no proper address of the institution mentioned on the mark-sheet certificate and information provided under Right to Information Act by the Principal Vallabh Government college, Mandi District Mandi, H.P., vide letter No. EDN-GCM-Mandi/RTI/2016-416 dated 7.5.2016, demonstrated that respondent No.3 was a regular student of B.A. Part-I during the relevant time, against Roll No. A1-11-106 for the session 2011-12 in the said college. Learned Appellate Authority, thus held that the Selection Committee did not go into the genuineness of the certificates, submitted by the petitioner before assigning marks to her. It also held that said certificates were not genuine certificates and on the basis of said findings, learned Appellate Authority has set aside the appointment of the petitioner as mentioned above. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the same is based on information submitted before it, obtained by present respondent No.5 under Right to Information Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the same is based on information submitted before it, obtained by present respondent No.5 under Right to Information Act. As while preparing the said information, the Authorities concerned did not associate the petitioner with the process, therefore, principles of natural justice has been violated. On these basis, the impugned order have been prayed to be set aside. No other point was urged. 8. Perusal of the record demonstrates that the learned Appellate Court passed the order, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner, after hearing all the parties and after taking into consideration their respective submissions as also the documents placed by them on record. 9. It is a matter of record that respondent No.5 herein had placed before the learned Appellate Authority, the information obtained under Right to Information Act, to demonstrate that Nursery Teacher Experience Certificate obtained by the petitioner was from a non-existing school and simultaneously the Diploma submitted by her for Nursery Teacher Course was also not a genuine one because the diploma pertained to the year 2011-12, when she was enrolled as a regular student of B.A. Part-I, in Vallabh Government College, Mandi, which was a government owned college. 10. In my considered view, while providing the information sought by respondent No.5 under Right to Information Act, Authorities providing the information, were under no obligation to hear the petitioner. Same is not the requirement of Right to Information Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the information under Right to Information Act has been provided by flouting the principle of Natural Justice. 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that the information obtained under Right to Information Act was not brought to the notice of the petitioner during the hearing of the appeal, yet the Appellate Authority relied upon the said documents and non suited her. It is borne out from the record that the information obtained under Right to Information Act was placed before the learned Appellate Authority. It is further not the case of the petitioner that she was not given any opportunity by the Appellate Authority to rebut the documents placed on record by the appellant therein, which includes the documents obtained under Right to Information Act. It is further not the case of the petitioner that she was not given any opportunity by the Appellate Authority to rebut the documents placed on record by the appellant therein, which includes the documents obtained under Right to Information Act. As the information obtained under Right to Information Act was duly placed on record by respondent No.5 herein before the Appellate Authority, petitioner had ample opportunity to rebut the correctness of the information so provided, which she failed to do. In other words, the contents of the information provided by the Authority under Right to Information Act remained un-rebuted before the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, vide which the services of the petitioner have been terminated, cannot be said to be bad in law for want of compliance of principle of natural justice. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was able to gain employment on the strength of the three marks allotted to her by the Selection Committee under the heading of experience. Learned Appellate Authority has categorically held that there was no such school existing, purportedly from which, the teaching experience was gained by the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the findings so returned by the learned Appellate Authority, are perverse findings and not borne out from the record. The information which has been provided under Right to Information Act to the effect that no such school exists, from where the Experience Certificate purportedly was obtained by the petitioner, has been provided by none other, but by the Public Information Officer of the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala (Kangra). There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the information which has been so provided by the said Public Information Officer. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court to the contrary. Learned Counsel has also not been able to satisfy as to how petitioner undertook a regular diploma course in Nursery Teacher Course while pursuing her graduation as a regular candidate. 13. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any perversity with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, which stands impugned, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.