Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Others on 27 August, 2019
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 1390 of 2018
Decided on: 27.08.2019
____________________________________________________________
Satya Devi ...Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. & Others ...Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
__________________________________________________________
For the appellants : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate.
For the respondents
r :
Mr. Vikas Rathore and Mr. Narender Guleria,
Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Manoj
Bagga, Asstt. Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate vice Mr. H.S.
Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
____________________________________________________________
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
The writ petitioner, who has not appeared in the Interview for the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Pando Negia, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, held pursuant to Advertisement dated 28.5.2018, seeks to quash the selection and appointment of respondent No.4-Smt. Bohri Devi, as Anganwari Helper.
2. The bare minimum facts required for adjudication of the present lis are:-
1Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:19 :::HCHP 2
2(i) The interviews for the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Pando Negia, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, were held on 08.08.2007, under 2007 Policy. Petitioner as well as respondent No.4, participated in the selection process. Respondent No.4, was eventually .
selected and appointed as Anganwari Helper.
2(ii) Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.4- Smt. Bohri Devi, as Anganwari Helper before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, alleging her income to be above the prescribed limit. The appeal was dismissed on 09.06.2009 (Annexure P-1 colly).
2(iii) Further appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed on
03.12.2009 by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla, by remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan.
2(iv) The Deputy Commissioner, Solan, vide order dated 19.06.2010, directed the Tehsildar, Nalagarh to re-assess the income of respondent No.4- Smt. Bohri Devi's family. In compliance to the direction, Tehsildar, Nalagarh, after issuing notices to the parties, re-assessed the family income of petitioner and respondent No.4 vide his order dated 18.02.2012. Family income of respondent No.4-Smt. Bohri Devi, was re-
assessed as Rs. 50,200/- (the amount included Rs.16,200/- wages of her husband Sh. Kashmiri Lal, Rs. 4000/- on account of agricultural income and Rs. 30,000/- income of her brother-in-law-Sh. Satish Kumar.
Petitioner's family income was also re-assessed as Rs.23,800/-(which included her husband's income of Rs. 15000/- and Rs.8,800/- as income of ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:19 :::HCHP 3 her son-Sh. Kamal Chand. Tehsildar, Nalagarh, on the basis of this re-
assessment, cancelled the earlier income certificates of petitioner and respondent No.4. The Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, vide order dated 27.12.2012, by directing the .
parties to approach the Competent Court.
2(v) After the cancellation of the income certificate, respondent No.3/ The Child Development Project Officer, issued Show Cause Notice to respondent No.4-Smt. Bohri Devi, for cancellation of her appointment as Anganwari Helper. This led her to file CWP No.2914/2013 in this Court. Pursuant to order passed therein, respondent No.4, continued in service. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.07.2013 (Annexure P-7), with a direction to Tehsildar Nalagarh to re-verify the income certificates of petitioner as well as respondent No.4, after giving them opportunity of hearing. In compliance to the directions, Tehsildar Nalagarh, vide order dated 03.01.2014, re-verified and confirmed that the income of family of respondent No.4, was correctly assessed as Rs. 50,200/-, during the year 2007. Resultantly, respondent No.3, cancelled the appointment of respondent No.4-Smt. Bohri Devi, on 12.10.2015 (Annexure P-10).
2(vi) Respondent No.4-Smt. Bohri Devi, filed her second Writ Petition, bearing No. CWP No.4468/2015, before this Court and continued in service on the basis of interim order. The writ petition was finally dismissed in default on 24.08.2017. As a sequel, respondent No.3 cancelled the appointment of respondent No.4 on 05.09.2017.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:19 :::HCHP 42(vii) During the interregnum, respondent No.4, in accordance with law, separated from the joint family. The Parivar Register of her nuclear family pursuant to such separation, has been brought on record of the present writ petition (Annexure R-4/1), wherein, the name of her .
brother-in-law-Sh. Satish Kumar, is not reflected as a family member. The family is also reflected as belonging to below poverty line (BPL).
Accordingly new family income certificate has been issued to respondents No.4's husband on 27.09.2017 (Annexure R-4/2), depicting the income of her family to be not more than Rs.35,000/-, which is the outer eligibility limit of income, prescribed under 2016 Notification, issued by the State Government for appointment of Anganwari Helpers under ICDS, Programme.
2(viii) Appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwari Helper, having been cancelled vide order dated 05.09.2017, fresh applications were invited for filling up the vacant post. The advertisement was issued in this regard on 28.05.2018. Two candidates including respondent No.4, applied for the post. Respondent No.4, having topped the merit list, was selected and appointed as Anganwari Helper.
2(ix) It is this fresh appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwari Helper which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
3(i) It is not in dispute that the petitioner himself has not participated in the fresh selection process held pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.05.2018. Petitioner, therefore, has no locus standi ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:19 :::HCHP 5 to challenge the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwari Helper.
3(ii) Petitioner has not challenged the Advertisement dated 28.05.2018 and the selection process commenced thereunder for filling in .
vacant post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Pando Negia, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan.
3(iii) Petitioner has not even challenged the fresh income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4- Smt. Bohri Devi's family entitling her to come within the eligibility criteria for the post of Anganwari Helper under 2016 Notification. Petitioner has also not challenged the separation of respondent No.4's family from her earlier joint family as evidenced in Annexure R-4/1-the copy of Parivar Registrar, wherein not only her nuclear family is stated to have separated from the joint family, but is also reflected as belonging to BPL category.
3(iv) The writ petitioner seeking to quash the selection and the appointment of respondent No.4-Smt. Bohri Devi, is not maintainable. The prayer of the petitioner for making the selection and appointment to the post of Anganwari Helper on the basis of 2007 selection process and to appoint the candidate next in the waiting list is dehors of not only the legal position, but also against the factual position as events have overtaken themselves, which have not been challenged by the petitioner. Even otherwise, such kind of petition in service matters can also not be treated in form of public interest litigation. See: Civil Appeal No. 5444 of 2019, titled ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:19 :::HCHP 6 as Vishal Ashok Thorat and ors. v. Rajesh Shrirabapu Fate & ors.
Decided on 19.07.2019 as well as (2011) 5 SCC 464, titled as Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vevekananda Centernary College and others.
.
4. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s),if any, also stand disposed of.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge (Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge 27.08.2019 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:40:19 :::HCHP