Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 101 (HP)

Chameli Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-03-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : [Ajay Mohan Goel, J.] 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 15.07.2013 contained in Annexure P3 passed by respondent No.2 and Enquiry Report dated 26.09.2011 contained in Annexure P2 passed by respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed, by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner, being in waiting first, by issuing a writ of mandamus.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 (Smt. Maya Devi) filed an application before Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. for implementation of a judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3356 of 2010, pertaining to appointment of Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Segal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Directions were issued by Deputy Commissioner to Naib Tehsildar, Nihri to pass orders qua Income Certificates of the concerned parties with regard to their respective family income on the date of issuance of the Income Certificate. In his report dated 02.12.2010, Naib Tehsildar, Nihri reported that Income Certificates issued in favour of the present petitioner as also respondents No.5 and 6 were correctly issued. This was assailed by respondent No.5 by way of appeal before respondent No.2, who accepted the appeal and set aside the report of Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, on the ground that the Inquiry Report was not issued in terms of decision dated 17.05.2010, passed by this Court in CWP No.1096 of 2010. Further directions were issued to Naib Tehsildar, Nihri to reassess the income of the parties strictly in terms of the averments made in CWP No.1096 of 2010. Naib Tehsildar, Nihri again submitted his report and now he held that Income Certificates of all the three parties were not based on the factual position. The income of the family of the petitioner was assessed as Rs.13,700/per annum and that of Smt. Daya Devi (respondent No.5) was also assessed as Rs.13,700/per annum. The income of family of Smt. Leela Devi (respondent No.6) was assessed as Rs.6,500/- per annum. According to the petitioner, Naib Tehsildar was not competent to do so and he had no power or jurisdiction to issue Income Certificate. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against the Inquiry Report dated 26.09.2011 before respondent No.2, who dismissed the appeal in terms of order dated 15.07.2013. According to the petitioner, Naib Tehsildar was not competent to do so and he had no power or jurisdiction to issue Income Certificate. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against the Inquiry Report dated 26.09.2011 before respondent No.2, who dismissed the appeal in terms of order dated 15.07.2013. According to the petitioner, the income of respondent No.6 (Smt. Leela Devi) has been wrongly assessed by respondent No.4 as the income of her mother-in-law was not taken into account, who was owner-in-possession of land measuring more than six bighas in Sub-Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. Further, as per the petitioner, her family income was wrongly assessed by respondent No.4 as her family was not possessing 1955 bighas of land. Accordingly, as per the petitioner, as the family income of respondents No.5 and 6 was more than the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/, none of them were eligible to be considered for appointment as Anganwari Worker and therefore, the petition stood filed, praying for the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove. 3. The petition has been resisted by respondent No.6, who has taken the stand that there was no infirmity with regard to the family income of said respondent as assessed by the authority concerned and as the family income of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 was more than the prescribed limit, therefore, she was the only eligible person for being appointed against the post in issue. It was further her case that time and again appeals were preferred by the petitioner against the Income Certificate issued by the authority concerned in favour of respondent No.6 and the family income was reassessed by the authorities and in this process of reassessment, again the family income of the replying respondent was found to be below the prescribed limit, whereas that of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 was found to be much above that. 4. Respondents No.1 to 4 have taken the stand that the State Government has formulated the Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Worker and Helpers and at the time of selection subject matter of the present petition, the annual income of a candidate was prescribed as Rs.12,000/-per annum. 4. Respondents No.1 to 4 have taken the stand that the State Government has formulated the Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Worker and Helpers and at the time of selection subject matter of the present petition, the annual income of a candidate was prescribed as Rs.12,000/-per annum. As per the State, Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar enjoyed the powers of Executive Magistrate in revenue matters and the orders which were passed by Naib Tehsildar visavis family income of the parties were strictly in terms of the provisions of H.P. Land Record Mannual as also the directions issued by this Court. It is further the stand of the State that the orders which have been passed by the authorities, which stand assailed by way of present writ petition, have been passed after taking into consideration the facts and record and the same have been passed in accordance with the Guidelines of the State Government. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition. 6. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate the contention that family income of respondent No.6 as assessed by the authority concerned was not based on facts or that the same was result of non-inclusion of the income which otherwise the family of respondent No.6 was earning. 7. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and while invoking its jurisdiction of judicial review, this Court cannot dwell on factual matrix as those issues are to be decided either by the Courts of first instance or by Quasi Judicial Authorities, as in the present case and it was for the petitioner to have had substantiated before the Quasi Judicial Authorities what is being alleged in the present petition. The petitioner having failed to do so, now cannot call upon this Court to also go into this fact finding mission. 8. The petitioner having failed to do so, now cannot call upon this Court to also go into this fact finding mission. 8. As during the course of arguments, it could be pointed out that the orders have been passed by the authorities either by ignoring the principles of natural justice or by not adhering to the mode and manner in which such like matters have to be decided, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition lacks merit and the orders under challenge cannot be held to be bad in law as the petitioner has failed to point out any patent perversity therein. 9. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, present petition fails and the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.