Himachal Pradesh High Court
Guddi Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 13 March, 2020
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.553 of 2014
Decided on: 13th March, 2020
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guddi Devi
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
.....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
The Hon'ble Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Manoj Bagga,
Assistant Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 4-State.
Mr. Rohit Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P/5), passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker was set aside, instant writ petition has been preferred.
::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 22. Facts may be noticed:-
(i). In terms of notification dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P-1) issued for appointment of Anganwadi Workers .
under ICDS programme in Himachal Pradesh, respondents No.1 to 4 took steps for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Dodla, under CDPO Rait, District Kangra. The interviews were conducted on 13.08.2007, in which the petitioner alongwith others participated. The petitioner was selected for the post and she joined as such in August, 2007.
(ii). The selection of the petitioner was challenged by respondents No.5 to 7 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The selection and appointment of the petitioner was set aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, on 02.12.2008.
(iii). In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, vide order dated 23.01.2009, set aside the order dated 02.12.2008 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra and remanded the matter for fresh hearing to the Deputy ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 3 Commissioner, Kangra. The selection of the petitioner was once again set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, on 27.01.2010, against which, the petitioner .
preferred a writ petition, bearing CWP No.373 of 2010.
On 16.06.2010, the writ petition was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, for fresh decision.
(iv). On remand, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, vide order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P/5), impugned herein, set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. Feeling aggrieved, instant writ petition has been preferred.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4-State. None has put in appearance on behalf of private respondents No.5 and 7. Even otherwise also, impugned order had held the complaint of respondent No.7 against the selection and appointment of the petitioner as not maintainable since she had herself not participated in the selection process. Alongwith the rejoinder, the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit of respondent No.6 stating therein that she wants to withdraw ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 4 her complaint against the selection of the petitioner, does not want to proceed further in the matter and has no objection to the continuation of the petitioner as an .
Anganwadi Worker.
4. While setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, has taken into account following factors:-
(a). The income limit prescribed for an applicant to become eligible under the Anganwadi Policy dated 11.04.2007 as amended from time to time was Rs.12,000/- per annum at the relevant time. The petitioner alongwith her application had appended income certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tehsildar, Kangra, dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure P/2), reflecting the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.11,000/- per annum, which was within the limit prescribed under the policy.
(b). Vide letter dated 17.02.2011, Tehsildar, Kangra reported that during enquiry conducted in respect of income of the petitioner, it came out that the petitioner had got issued a certificate of income dated 16.05.2007, from the Naib Tehsildar, Harchakian, ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 5 giving her annual income at Rs.18,000/- per annum.
Therefore, the matter was again enquired from Naib Tehsildar, Harchakian, who determined the annual .
income of the petitioner at Rs.20,000/- as it existed in 2007.
(c). In view of the fact that the petitioner had, statedly, two income certificates, i.e. one dated 16.05.2007, issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Harchakian, reflecting annual income of the petitioner in 2007 as Rs.18,000/- and another certificate dated 15.06.2007, issued by the Tehsildar, Kangra, reflecting her income at Rs.11,000/-
per annum, therefore, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, observed in the impugned order that the income certificate dated 16.05.2007 had to be treated as genuine income certificate of the petitioner, as she belongs to Village Harchakian. It was also observed in the impugned order that the petitioner had misled the authorities and had got issued two income certificates from two different authorities. On weight of these facts, the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker was set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 65. During hearing of the case, the following order came to be passed on 25.10.2019:-
"Though learned Additional Advocate General .
has produced the record, however, the same is only in respect of income Certificate dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure P-2). The record in respect of the Income Certificate dated 16.05.2007 allegedly issued by Naib Tehsildar, Harchakkian, Tehsil & District Kangra, has not been produced.
As per the instructions imparted by the Tehsildar, Kangra, to learned Additional Advocate General, which are taken on record, an income certificate vide endorsement No.2585/MC, dated 14.06.2007, was issued in favour of petitioner Smt. Guddi Devi w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar, resident of Village Dodla, P.O. Harchakkian, Tehsil & District Kangra. However, the record pertaining to the same is stated to have been destroyed, post approval from the authority concerned, on 09.01.2016. Let, an affidavit in this regard be filed within two weeks by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. List thereafter."
6. In compliance to the above extracted order, the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, filed his affidavit dated 26.11.2019 to the effect that the income certificate dated 14.06.2007 (sic 15.06.2007) pertaining to the petitioner had been weeded out after obtaining approval of the competent authority and further that no other family income certificate ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 7 of the petitioner has been traced out in Sub-Tehsil Harchakian. The relevant paras from the affidavit are extracted hereinafter:-
.
"2. That record pertaining to income certificate No.2585/MC dated 14.06.2007 pertaining to Smt. Guddi Devi w/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar r/o Dodla, P.O. Harchakian Sub-Tehsil Harchakian District Kangra has been weeded out after obtaining approval from the then Tehsildar Kangra on 09.01.2016 by Tehsil office Kangra. Copy of noting sheet, list of documents approved for weeding out, relevant entry in the office register is enclosed as Annexure R-I.
3. That no family income certificate in respect of Smt. Guddi Devi w/o Rakesh Kumar r/o Village Dodla, PO & Sub-Tehsil Harchakian has been traced out in the office of Sub Tehsil Harchakian. Copy of letter No.78/MC dated 17.10.2019 received from Naib Tehsildar Harchakian is enclosed as Annexure R-II."
7. Significantly, letter dated 17.10.2019, appended alongwith the affidavit as Annexure R-II, addressed by the Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Harchakian, District Kangra, to the Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh, is to the effect that no family income certificate in respect of Smt. Guddi Devi W/o Rakesh Kumar, resident of Village Dodla, Post Office and Sub-Tehsil Harchakian, could ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 8 be traced out in the office. When the certificate dated 16.05.2007 is not available in the office of the Naib Tehsildar, Harchakian, and affidavit to this effect has been .
sworn in by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, then there remains no basis for passing the impugned order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P-5) by relying upon such certificate.
In the absence of certificate dated 16.05.2007, which is the primary basis for passing the impugned order, the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker cannot be set aside. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 08.04.2013 cannot be confirmed or approved. It is not in dispute that one of the complainant, respondent No.7, had not participated in the interview for the post in question. On this ground, her appeal against the selection and appointment of the petitioner was held to be not maintainable. These findings in the impugned order have not been challenged by respondent No.7. Respondent No.5, another complainant, had been proceeded ex-parte in the present writ petition. She probably is not interesting in pursuing her complaint against the selection and appointment of the petitioner. Respondent No.6 has also submitted an affidavit, which is annexed by the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP 9 alongwith rejoinder, to the effect that she has no objection to petitioner's continuation as Anganwadi Worker and that she wants to withdraw her complaint preferred in that .
regard. It has not been disputed that the petitioner is discharging her duties till date as an Anganwadi Worker w.e.f. August, 2007.
In view of the above peculiar facts of the case, the interest of justice will suffice by quashing the impugned order dated 08.04.2013 (Annexure P/5) to the extent it quashes the selection and appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker. Ordered accordingly. Respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Dodla, where she is discharging her duties w.e.f. August, 2007.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge March 13, 2020 Mukesh ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 20:23:07 :::HCHP