Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kesari Devi vs State Of H.P And Others on 31 March, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1786 of 2008 .
Decided on: 31st March, 2016
Kesari Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P and others. ...Respondents.
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, rt Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. D.S. Nainta and Mr. Virender
Verma, Additional Advocate
Generals for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral).
Private respondent, Smt. Ati Devi was selected and appointed as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Tared under I.C.D.S project, Bilaspur, consequent upon the interview conducted by the selection committee constituted under the scheme for the purpose on 24.07.2007. She was appointed/selected as Anganwari worker and joined her duties, as such, on 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:46 :::HCHP 216.08.2007, however, later on it transpired that the date of separation of the candidate interviewed on .
24.07.2007 in parivar register were not there in the documents, the candidates furnished. The post, therefore, was again advertised on 25.08.2007 and the of interview conducted on 27.08.2007. On this occasion, it is the petitioner who was selected and appointed as Anganwari rtworker in Anganwari Centre, Tared.
However, in an appeal preferred by the private respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, the selection of the petitioner has been set aside vide impugned order, Annexure P-3 on the grounds that neither due publicity was given nor fresh interview conducted after the interval of atleast one week from the date of advertisement. Even the intimation was not found to be given to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat also.
The appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker in the Centre, therefore, was cancelled with a direction to the 3rd respondent to proceed further with the selection process as per the provisions contained under ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:46 :::HCHP 3 the scheme framed for appointment of Anganwari worker.
.
2. The order, Annexure P-3 was taken by the petitioner herein by way of further appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division. The Commissioner has of affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order, Annexure P-5. The petitioner rt aggrieved by the impugned order has approached this Court by filing the present petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the same.
3. The respondent-State has contested and resisted the claim of the petitioner on the grounds inter-
alia that since the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker was not in accordance with the scheme, as such, the same was rightly cancelled with a direction to the 3rd respondent to conduct fresh interview.
4. On hearing learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and going through the record, it would not be improper to conclude that the selection and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:46 :::HCHP 4 appointment of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled by the competent authority, for the reason that the .
advertisement seems to be made on 25.08.2007, whereas, the interview conducted on 27.08.2007 i.e. within a day thereafter. The Pradhan of the local Gram of Panchayat was also not informed nor due publicity given. The selection process, therefore, is contrary to the rt provisions of law and as such, does not stand to the test of legal scrutiny. The appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker is, therefore, contrary to the provisions under the scheme, as such, has rightly been cancelled.
Consequently, the impugned orders Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-5 cannot be said to be legally unsustainable.
Otherwise also, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner as the process to fill-up the post in question in accordance with the scheme has to be initiated afresh.
The petitioner and private respondent, therefore, may also apply, if so advised for being considered against the post in question along with other candidates. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:46 :::HCHP 55. Before parting with this judgment, it is directed that the 3rd respondent shall expedite the .
process to be initiated for making selection afresh for filling-up the post in question within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of judgment from the office of of learned Advocate General. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, who presently is working as Anganwari worker rt in Anganwari Centre, Tared shall continue to work as such till fresh selection is made.
6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
March 31, 2016 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:46 :::HCHP