Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chameli Devi vs State Of Hp & Others on 9 November, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2549 of 2010
Reserved on 3.11.2016.
.
Decided on: 9.11 .2016.
Chameli Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP & others ... Respondents.
................................................................................................
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
rt No.
For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate .
For respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Vikram Thakur Dy. Advocate General
For respondent No.5. : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) That the selection of the respondent NO.5 as Aganwari Worker be declared as illegal, arbitrary and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii) That the impugned action of the respondents of excluding the houses of the petitioner from feeding area of Aganwari Centre Gajon which is at a distance of les than one KMs and including the villages which are at a distance of 10 KMs in the feeding area be declared to be illegal, arbitrary without any rational criteria and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside;
iii) That the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as Aganwari Worker, as the petitioner was only the eligible candidate available in the selection process in question.
iv) That the entire record of the case may kindly be summoned;1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP 2Or Such other orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that process was initiated by respondent-authority for appointment of Aganwari Worker in Aganwari Centre, Ghujond, Sub Tehsil Kamroo, ICDS Block Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur in the year 2007 as per scheme/guidelines for the of engagement of Aganwari Worker/Helper on honorary basis under ICDS Scheme run by Social Justice and Empowerment rt Department issued vide notification dated 11.4.2007.
3. Two candidates submitted their candidatures for being consid ered against the post of Aganwari Worker for Aganwari Centre, Ghujond i.e. petitioner and respondent No.5.
As per mark sheet Annexure P2 dated 3.8.2007, respondent No.5 was selected having attained 9.7 marks out of total of 20 whereas the petitioner had secured only 8.9 marks out of 20. In the remarks column against the name of respondent No.5 "Selected" was written. Against the name of petitioner in the remarks column "From distance" was written.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the factum of respondent No.5 having been found to be more meritorious for the appointment as Aganwari Worker, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under Clause 12 of the Guidelines to Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Sirmaur.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP 3Petitioner had laid challenge to the selection of respondent No.5 on various grounds including the ground that the income of selected candidate was beyond prescribed limit and she .
(selected candidate) had placed on record forged disability certificate. It was further the case of the petitioner that experience certificates issued by the competent authorities which were duly submitted by her (i.e. the petitioner) had not of been taken into consideration as per the guidelines.
5. The appeal so filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.8.2007 vide Annexure P13. Appellate authority concluded rt that petitioner had declared her native place as 'Ghujond' whereas in her three experience certificates her native place was recorded as 'Baila'. It was further held that inquiry report dated 1.12.2008 of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Paonta Sahib revealed that selection of selected candidate was right and just, as the petitioner did not belong to feeder area of Aganwari Centre, Ghujond. Appellate authority also took into consideration survey register for Aganwari Centre-Baila with respect to petitioner's family. It was held by appellate authority that as per the scheme/guidelines only such female candidates were eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari Worker or Helper who were Resident of the village/Ward where Anganwari Centre was located or belonged to the feeding Villages/Wards of the Anganwari area. On these bases it was held by appellate ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP 4 authority even if theoretically, contention of petitioner was accepted and some more marks were allotted to her on merit, the fact still remain ed that she did not belong to feeder area of .
Aganwari Centre, Ghujond. Appellate authority also expressed its anguish over the utter careless manner in which the office of CDPO, Paonta Sahib had handled the case and had kept the petitioner in dark over this aspect of the matter that she did not of fall in the feeder area of Aganwari Centre, Ghujond. It was further observed by appellate authority that had CDPO, Paonta Sahib examined and screened all applications properly and rt informed the appellant of her ineligibility on account of Feeder Area Residence Parameter before the date of interview itself, petitioner would have had prolonged ordeal of appearing before the interview Board who was hopeful of job in Aganwari Centre, Ghujond leading to subsequent litigations.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of her appeal, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
7. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. No rejoinder has been filed to the reply nor any rejoinder was intended to be filed to the said replies when the case was taken up for arguments.
8. I have head learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant documents placed on record by the respective parties.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP 59. A copy of the scheme/guidelines issued by the respondent-State for appointment of Aganwari Workers/Helpers is on record as Annexure P1. A perusal of these guidelines which .
have been issued vide notification dated 11.4.2007 demonstrate that an order passed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner is further appealable before the Divis ional Commissioner within 15 days of the order so passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the of present case no appeal against the order so passed by the Deputy Commissioner was filed by the petitioner and there is no cogent explanation given in the petition as to why the said rt alternative remedy has not been exhausted. On the other hand it is mentioned in para 8 of the petition which is sworn on affidavit that there is no other equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner except to file the present writ petition for redressal of her grievances. Thus there is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the petitioner has directly approached this Court without exhausting the alternative efficacious remedy which was otherwise available to the petitioner under the Scheme itself.
10. Be that as it may, during the course of arguments Ms. Dutt learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted that the findings even otherwise returned by the appellate authority to the effect that the petitioner was not a resident of the feeder villages of Aganwari Centre, Ghujond cannot be faulted with. However her contention was that the exclusion of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP 6 the houses of the petitioner from the feeder area of Aganwari Centre, Ghujond was arbitrary and illegal and not based on any rational criteria . I am afraid that the said issue cannot be gone .
into in this petition because the petitioner participated in the process of appointment as Anganwari Worker in Aganwari Centre, Ghujond without laying any challenge to the determination of the feeder area which was carved out by the of State/Competent authorities for this particular Anganwari Centre.
Even otherwise taking into consideration the fact that carving out of feeder villages for a particular Anganwari Centre is the rt prerogative of the authority and it is not the case of the petitioner that her village does not fall within the feeder area of any Anganwari Centre , there is no occasion for this Court to enter into and adjudicate upon this aspect of the matter. Besides this, as the main grievance of the petitioner pertained to selection of respondent No.5 as Aganwari Worker at Aganwari Centre, Ghujond and there was an alternative efficacious remedy available to her against the order so passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal preferred by her against the said selection, this Court will not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in the absence of there being any cogent explanation by the petitioner as to why she did not exhaust the alternative remedy.
Further taking into consideration the fact even the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the finding returned ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP 7 by the appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner) to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to feeder villages of Aganwari Centre, Ghujond cannot be faulted with and thus as the .
petitioner was prima facie ineligible to participate in the process of selection for being appointed as Anganwari Worker in Aganwari Centre, Ghujond, in my considered view no purpose will be achieved by adjudicating upon other issues raised by the of petitioner on merit including the alleged ineligibilities from which the private respondent was suffering from and alleged arbitrary ignorance of the experience certificates of the petitioner.
rt Therefore , in view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge th 9 November, 2016.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:41 :::HCHP