Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 552 (HP)

Anita Kumari v. State of H. P.

2025-03-28

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “(i) Entire record pertaining to the present case, may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (ii) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order, Annexure P-3 dated 21.04.2011 passed by Tehsildar Mandi, Annexure P-4/A passed on 21.11.2012 by learned Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi and other Annexure P-5 dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and for quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwari Worker. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to give the appointment of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Darvyas, P.O. Thina Galu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. to the petitioner with effect from06.08.2007 with all consequential benefits.” 2. Applications were invited by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the year 2007 for appointment of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Darvyas, Post Office Thina Galu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Petitioner and respondent No.3, besides others, applied for being appointed as Anganwari Worker. The interviews were conducted on 25.07.2007. The result was declared on 06.08.2007. Respondent No.3 Ms. Asha Kumari was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Darvyas, P.O. Thina Galu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. 4. The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi in appeal No. 794 of 2007 under para 12 of the Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers (for short, “Scheme”). The petitioner remained unsuccessful and her appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi on 08.09.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner availed the remedy of another appeal under the Scheme before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi by way of Miscellaneous Appeal No.659 of 2008. The second appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi on 17.11.2008. 5. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of CWP No.42 of 2009 to assail the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court and the case was remanded back with the direction to conduct inquiry regarding income of the candidates through the competent authority and then to decide the appeal afresh. 6. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court and the case was remanded back with the direction to conduct inquiry regarding income of the candidates through the competent authority and then to decide the appeal afresh. 6. In compliance to aforesaid judgment, the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi conducted an inquiry and submitted his report on 21.04.2011 (Annexure P-3). The income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 was found to have been correctly issued. The petitioner preferred objections against the report submitted by the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi, which were rejected by the Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi vide order dated 21.12.2011(Annexure P-4). Finally, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-5) rejected the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the report submitted by the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi, Annexure P-3, is cryptic and is not based on correct factual position. According to petitioner, respondent No.3 has got 60 bighas of land from which the annual income is Rs.50,000/-. The father-in-law of respondent No.3 is stated to be drawing pension of Rs.3,000/- per month. In addition, sister-in-law of respondent No.3 is also alleged to be working as Anganwari Worker. As per petitioner, the family of respondent No.3 is living jointly and the income of the family is much more than the prescribed limits under the Scheme. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the subsequent orders passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi vide Annexure P-4 and the final order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, Annexure P-5 on the grounds that the said orders have been passed merely on the report of Tehsildar Sadar Mandi (Annexure P-3). It is contended that as the report of Tehsildar Sadar Mandi cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, the subsequent orders also need to be quashed and set-aside. 9. Admittedly, CWP No.42 of 2009 filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2010. The direction was to get the income of the candidates assessed through the competent authority as per law. 10. Chapter 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual 1992 (for short “the Manual”) contains provisions for grant and cancellation etc. The direction was to get the income of the candidates assessed through the competent authority as per law. 10. Chapter 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual 1992 (for short “the Manual”) contains provisions for grant and cancellation etc. of the certificate of income. Clause 28.1 vests the power to issue income certificate with the jurisdictional Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar. 11. Clause 28.20 deals with the cancellation of income certificate issued under Clause 28.1. The power to cancel the income certificate is also vested with the issuing authority, who after entertaining the belief either on a complaint or on receipt of information from any source, that the certificate had been issued wrongly, may cancel such certificate. 12. An appeal is provided under Clause 28.21, against the order of cancellation, to the Sub Divisional Officer (C), who has power to reverse or affirm the cancellation order. 13. The Tehsildar Sadar Mandi vide order, Annexure P-3, after holding inquiry had upheld the income certificate issued by his office in favour of respondent No.3. The remedy available to petitioner was to agitate the issuance of certificate before the Tehsildar but in the instant case Tehsildar had already exercised that jurisdiction in compliance to order passed in CWP 42 of 2009. As noticed above, the decision of Tehsildar Sadar Mandi confirming the income certificate issued by his office in favour of respondent No.3 was not appealable by the petitioner. As per Clause 28.21 of Chapter 20 of the Manual, the appeal is maintainable only in case the order of cancellation of income certificate was passed. In this view of the matter, no infirmity or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi while passing the final order dated 05.12.2013 against Annexure P-5. 14. Though, the petitioner has again raised all the factual disputes before this Court, but the same cannot be gone into being disputed questions of facts. The income certificate issued by the competent authority has attained finality. The petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate the validity of said order in these proceedings by trying to re-open the factual disputes. Even otherwise, it will neither be possible nor advisable to enter into such arena after the lapse of about 18 years after the selection of respondent No.3 as Anganwari Worker. 15. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. Even otherwise, it will neither be possible nor advisable to enter into such arena after the lapse of about 18 years after the selection of respondent No.3 as Anganwari Worker. 15. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.