Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kavita Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others on 17 June, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.: 2788 of 2016 &
.
CMP No. 5123 of 2019
Decided on: 17.06.2019.
Smt. Kavita Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. B. N. Mehta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional
Advocate General with M/s R.P.
Singh and Amit Kumar Dhumal,
Deputy Advocate Generals for
respondent-State.
: Mr. Devender K. Sharma,
Advocate vice Mr. C.N. Singh,
Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
CMP No. 5123 of 2019
No order is required to be passed in this application as the petition is being disposed of today itself.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP2. By way of this petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following substantive relief:-
.
"(1)). That the petitioner in the facts and circumstances prays that the Civil Writ Petition may very kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to set aside and quashed Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/3 after summoning the relevant record concerning the case appoint before present ADC Sirmour petitioner on and Commission Shimla and further direction to the Divisional post of Anganbari workers in place of Respondent No. 4 who has only joined on 14-10-2016 by the order of Respondent No. 3, otherwise the present Petitioner was working on the post for the last 10 years till 14.-10-2016.
(2) That any other orders just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Bhajyana-tutab, ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP Tehsil and ICDS Block Pachhad, District Sirmaur, HP, on 14.08.2007. Her appointment as such was assailed by Smt. .
Anita, present respondent No. 4, inter alia on the ground that income certificate submitted by the petitioner was incorrect as on 01.10.2004, i.e. the cut of date envisaged in the Policy issued by respondent-State for the purpose of making appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker.
4. As per respondent No. 4 petitioner was residing in a joint family, headed by Sh. Moti Ram and in the said joint family, Sh. Som Dutt, elder brother of the husband of the present petitioner was also residing and his wife, i.e. wife of Som Dutt, was serving as Tailoring Teacher and her income besides income of other family members, was not disclosed by the petitioner while gaining the appointment as Anganwari Worker.
5. Vide order dated 14.01.2014, the appeal so filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed by the Appellate Authority and the appointment of present petitioner was quashed and set aside by further directing the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Block, Pachhad, to appoint next eligible person, whose name appeared in the merit list.
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, i.e. Appeal No. 10 of 2014. Same was rejected by the Second .
Appellate Authority. By way of a reasoned and speaking order, said Authority upheld the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmaur, at Nahan, dated 14.01.2014, vide which the services of the petitioner were dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this petition seeking for reliefs already quoted herein-above.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as also the record of the case.
9. It is not in dispute that as on 01.01.2004, i.e. the cut of date notified by the Government, the petitioner was residing in a joint family, headed by Moti Ram. It is also not in dispute that wife of elder brother of the husband of the petitioner, who were also residing in the joint family, was working as Tailoring Teacher and her monthly wages were 700/-. While ascertaining the annual income of an applicant, who applies for the post of Anganwari Worker, it is not as if the solitary income of the applicant has to be taken ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP into consideration. It is the total income of the family of the applicant, which has to be taken into consideration. It is the .
admitted case of the petitioner that her family had separated as per the provisions of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, on 07.01.2007. Meaning thereby that as on the cut of date, the family of the petitioner was joint and not separated and in this view of the matter, the annual income certificate submitted by the petitioner was not worthy of reliance as the entire income of the family of the petitioner as on 01.01.2004 was not disclosed by her. This is exactly what was held by the first Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 and thereafter by Second Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner by the Second Appellate Authority.
10. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that there was any procedural infirmity with the orders passed by the said Authorities. In other words, it is not the case of the petitioner that principles of natural justice were not followed by the Authorities. Petitioner could also not point out any perversity with the orders passed by the Authorities on the basis of ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP record. In my considered view, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the case of judicial .
review, this Court cannot upset the findings returned by the quasi-judicial Authorities until and unless some perversity on the face of record is demonstrated. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the same in this case.
11. A perusal of the orders passed by the quasi-
Judicial Authorities
r demonstrates that the same are
reasoned and speaking orders. Said Authorities have taken into consideration the respective contentions of the parties.
Not only this, the findings returned are duly substantiated from the material on record. Meaning thereby that the findings are not returned on conjectures and surmises. The factum of the family of Som Dutt having been separated on 07.01.2007 in the meeting of Gram Sabha and entry of the family of the husband of the petitioner in the family Register on 20.08.2007 as separate family has been ascertained by the Authorities from the report of the Panchayat Secretary concerned. The Authorities have also held that there was not even an iota of doubt that till 07.01.2007, families of brothers of husband of the petitioner were living in a joint family, ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP headed by Sh. Moti Ram and the separation of the family of husband of the petitioner from the joint family was only on .
07.01.2007, whereas the cut of date was 01.01.2004. These findings, as already mentioned above, are duly borne out from the record of the case, and therefore, the same cannot be said to be perverse at all.
12. In this view of the matter, as this Court does not finds any perversity with the impugned orders, i.e. Order dated 14.01.2014, passed by Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmaur, Nahan (Annexure P/1), Order dated 23.6.2016, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla-02, (Annexure P/2), and Office Order dated 14.10.2016, passed by Child Development Project Officer, Pachhad, District Sirmaur, HP, (Annexure P/3), the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 17, 2019 (narender) ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:31:37 :::HCHP