Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anju Bala vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 5 January, 2017
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 5872 of 2013 .
Date of decision: 05.01.2017
Smt. Anju Bala ......Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others .......Respondents.
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
of Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
____________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the respondents: rt Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Jagdish Chand, Naib Tehsildar, Kotta, District Kangra present in person alongwith record.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge(Oral):
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre Muhal Nawan Shehar, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra on 10.08.2007 and she joined her duties as such on 13.08.2007.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the said appointment of the petitioner, an appeal was filed by respondent No. 6 before the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 2appellate authority so prescribed under the guidelines issued by the respondent-State for appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi .
Helpers, which appeal was allowed by the appellate authority, i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Kangra.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, who accepted the appeal on the ground that Additional District of Magistrate, Kangra was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the appeal which was filed by respondent No. 6 and the case was rt remanded back for adjudication by competent appellate authority. As in the interregnum, Additional District Magistrate was conferred the power to hear appeal in the matter of appointment of Anganwadi Worker/Helper, therefore, the said authority again heard the appeal, which was filed by respondent No. 6 against the appointment of the petitioner and allowed the same on the ground that the income of the petitioner was much more than reflected in the income certificate submitted by the petitioner. Order passed by the appellate authority was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No. 869/2010, which was disposed by this Court vide common judgement dated 17.05.2010 by setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanding the case back to the first appellate authority to decide the same afresh after obtaining a report with regard to the income of the petitioner from the competent ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 3 authority/Tehsildar concerned. Thereafter, a report was called from the Tehsildar concerned by the appellate authority with regard to the .
income certificate of the petitioner, who vide his report dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-6) reported that though the income certificate produced by the petitioner reflected the income of the family of the petitioner as `7000/- per annum, however, inquiry revealed that the income of the petitioner was `7609/-.
of
4. On the basis of the report so submitted by the Tehsildar, Additional District Magistrate, Kangra vide order dated rt 15.03.2013, set aside the appointment of the present petitioner by holding that report of Tehsildar, Jawali demonstrated that the present petitioner had obtained income certificate No. 869/MC, dated 15.05.2007 by concealing the actual income of her family.
Appellate authority held that the appointment of Smt. Anju Bala was made on wrong and false income and accordingly while allowing the appeal so filed by respondent No. 6, the appointment of the present petitioner was set aside on the ground of "wrong income certificate".
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned appellate authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that provisions of second appeal, as provided in the guidelines pertaining to appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers have been done away with subsequently.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 47. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in .
the eyes of law as perversity in the same is writ large. Mr. Jairath submitted that as per the eligibility criteria contemplated in the guidelines prevailing at the relevant time, a lady whose income did not exceed `8,000/- per annum, was eligible to be appointed either as Anganwadi Worker or as Anganwadi Helper. According to Mr. of Jairath, appellate authority failed to appreciate that even if the report submitted by Tehsildar was to be taken on its face value, then also rt income of the petitioner was not exceeding the limit as was prescribed in the eligibility criteria. In other words, as per Mr. Jairath, irrespective of the fact as to whether the income of the petitioner was `7000/- as mentioned in the income certificate or `7609/ as reported by the Tehsildar, she was eligible for the post in issue, as her income admittedly was less than `8,000/-. On these grounds, Mr. Jairath submits that the order passed by the learned appellate authority on the face of it is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
8. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 supported the impugned order by submitting that as the income certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be incorrect by Tehsildar, therefore, there was no error in the order passed by the appellate authority while setting aside the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 5 appointment of the petitioner. He submitted that what was to be seen was whether the certificate submitted by the petitioner was .
correct or incorrect and as Tehsildar had reported that the income certificate submitted by the petitioner was an act of concealment of income, therefore, even if the income of petitioner was less than `8,000/-, she was not having any right to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker. Though a feeble attempt was made by Mr. of Sanjay Jaswal to state that in fact the income of the petitioner was much more than `8,000/-, however, it is a matter of record that rt neither the report of Tehsildar has been challenged by respondent No. 6 nor any other material has been placed on record from which it can be inferred that the income of the petitioner was more than `8,000/-. Even otherwise, as per the guidelines, the authority who has to certify the annual income of the incumbent is an officer who is not below the rank of Tehsildar and in this case, the report of the Tehsildar is to the effect that the income of the petitioner was `7609/.
9. Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that it is apparent and evident from the report filed by Tehsildar that the income of the petitioner was not in excess of what was contemplated in the guidelines, however, according to him, because there is an adjudication by the appellate authority in this regard, therefore, the State is bound by it.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 610. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record which was produced in the Court .
by Mr. Jagdish Chand, Naib Tehsildar, Kotta, District Kangra.
11. In my considered view, there is merit in the contention of Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the guidelines for appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers under ICDS Scheme issued vide notification dated of 11th April, 2007 demonstrates that as per the eligibility criteria mentioned therein, only such female candidates were eligible to apply rt for the post of Anganwadi Worker or Helper inter alia whose annual income did not exceed `8000/- per annum and which was to be certified as such/countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.
12. Income certificate on the basis of which the petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwadi Helper is on record as Annexure P-2. This income certificate is dated 17.05.2007 and the said certificate reflects that the income of Anju Bala, W/o Sh.
Pradeep Kumar, i.e. the present petitioner does not exceed `7000/-.
Relevant portion of the report which was submitted on the said income certificate by Tehsildar concerned on the directions so issued by appellate authority-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kangra in obedience to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 869/2010, dated 17.05.2010, Tehsildar, Jawali reads as under:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 7"9. That on 12.06.2012, the complainant, again requested that she wants to record her statement. Her statement was recorded again in .
which she has stated that her own children are studying privately and her income is in the year 2007 was Rs.5000/- whereas Anju Bala's husband is working in Chamera Projext with HCC and earns Rs.140/- per day, but in the affidavit income was shown Rs.7000/- and her of father-in-law draws pension, copy of statement annexed as Annexure XIV.
rt Hence after going through the statements, Smt. Satya Devi, the complainant (Annexure -I) that husband of Smt. Anju Bala is working in Chamera Project and the admission of the fact by Smt. Anju Bala that her husband was working in a company, it is established that Pradeep Kumar husband of Smt. Anju Bala was working in a private company (Annexure -II) and children of Smt. Anju Bala are studying in a private school i.e. Our Own English School as per her subsequent statement, i.e. Annexure XII and detail of fee structure supplied by that school (Annexure-XIII). Sh. Pradeep Kumar (husband of Smt. Anju Bala was working in HCC company since 7-3-2007 and his Gross salary per month was Rs.3125/- as per the information supplied by the HCC company to the worthy Addl. District Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala, photocopy of which is also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 8 attasched alongwith the report and his gross salary since March, 2007 till 15.7.2012 comes as under as per information supplied by the .
HCC company to Incharge, Police Post Kotla (Annexure-X) photocopy of which is supplied by the complainant:
March, 2007 =2500
April,2007 =3418
Up to 15th May =1691 (i.e. date of issuing
of
Total =7609 Rupees income certificate)
Hence, total income of salary was 7609/- whereas the income certificate was issued for rt Rs.7000/- and afterward also he was working in that company, whereas affidavit which was of the father-in-law of Smt. Anju Bala (Annexure-IX), income from all sources has been mentioned Rs.7000/- per annum. So far as the income of Smt. Satya Devi is concerned, she was issued income certificate for Rs.5000/- on 8.5.2007 as per register of certificates maintained in this office at Sr. No. 429, photocopy of which is annexed as Annexure-XIV
(a) & XIV (b). Smt. Anju Bala has not stated anything about the source of income of Smt. Satya Devi, not produced any documentary proof. Smt. Satya Devi in her statement has stated that her husband is a Tailor and earns about Rs.100/- per day and her children are studying in College at present. It means they were in school when income certificate was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 9 procured and as her family is living separately, the income of her father-in-law from the landed property might not has been included. In her .
statement recorded on 12.6.2012, she has also stated that her husband has small shop in a village and not getting regular sewing work. So, it is established that income of Smt. Anju Bala W/o Pradeep Kumar was more than Rs. 7000/-
at the time of procuring the income certificate.
of Hence, the certificate issued to her vide No.869/MC dated 15.5.2007 is cancelled. A rtseparate notice of cancellation of certificate is being sent to her and directed to deposit the original certificate in this office and not to use the same for any purpose. So far as certificate issued to Smt. Satya Devi is concerned, no substantive evidence of higher income then the certificate issued to her at that time is established or brought to the notice by the respondent.
The report is hereby submitted for your kind perusal please."
13. It is not disputed that the findings returned by Tehsildar, Jawali to the effect that the income of the petitioner was `7609/-has not been challenged by respondent No. 6. Without going into the correctness of the report so filed by Tehsildar, Jawali, one thing which is apparent from perusal of the same is that even Tehsildar, Jawali did not return finding to the effect that annual ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 10 income of Anju Bala, i.e. the present petitioner was more than `8000/-. However, learned appellate authority while setting aside the .
appointment of the petitioner, lost sight of the fact that whether income of the petitioner was `7000/- or `7609/-, she was entitled for being appointed against the post of Anganwadi Helper, as her income as determined by Tehsildar was also within eligibility criteria contemplated in the guidelines. Learned appellate authority set aside of the appointment of the present petitioner on the ground that Anju Bala had obtained appointment on the basis of wrong and false rt income certificate, which finding in my considered view, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because after report was submitted by Tehsildar, what was to be ascertained by the learned appellate authority was as to whether the income certificate initially submitted by the petitioner was correct and if the same was not correct, then what as per the authority concerned, i.e. Tehsildar concerned was the income of the petitioner. Had the appellate authority come to the conclusion that as per report of Tehsildar, the income of the petitioner was in excess of the eligibility criteria contemplated in the guidelines, then the appellate authority would have had been justified in setting aside the appointment of the petitioner. However, in view of the fact that even as per the report of Tehsildar, the income of the petitioner was not in excess of `8000/-, learned appellate authority erred in setting aside the appointment of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP 11 the petitioner on the reasonings as are contained in the said order.
Therefore, impugned order passed by Additional District Magistrate, .
Kangra, dated 15.03.2013 is not sustainable in law.
14. As this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was still eligible to be considered for being appointed as an Anganwadi Helper, even if her income was to be taken as was determined by Tehsildar vide report dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-
of
6), therefore, there is no need to quash Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-10, order dated 16.07.2013 passed in appeal by Sub Divisional rt Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, wherein the report of Tehsildar was challenged by the present petitioner.
15. In view of the findings returned above, this writ petition is allowed. Order passed by Additional District Magistrate, Kangra in Case No. 12/2007, dated 15.03.2013 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and set aside and the respondent-State is directed to allow the petitioner to serve as Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Centre, Muhal Nawan Shehar, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
January 05, 2017 Judge
(bhupender)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:51:54 :::HCHP