Himachal Pradesh High Court
Beena Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Oth Ers on 5 July, 2016
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 6346 of 2012 Reserved on: 27.06.2016 Decided on: 05.07.2016 .
___________________________________________________ Beena Sharma .....Petitioner.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & oth ers. ......Respondents.
_________________ _______________ ___________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia , Judge.
of 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Dheera j K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents:
rt Mr. Virender K. Verma, Addl. AG, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents for quashing order, dated 10.05.2012, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Simultaneously, the petitioner is also seeking direction to the respondents to appoint her as Anganwari Worker, in Aganwari Centre, Sikroha, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. by quashing the appointment of respondent No. 6, Smt. Soma Devi.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case, as per the petitioner, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 2are that the petitioner alongwith seven other candidates appeared in interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sikroha, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., held on 29.05.2010, and consequent to .
the interviews respondent No. 6, Smt. Soma Devi, was appointed. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 6 did not fulfill the eligibility guidelines as laid down for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker, as she (respondent No. 6) is living jointly with her father-in-law, which is of depicted in copy of Pariwar Register (Annexure P-8). Copy of Pariwar Register demonstrates that respondent No. 6 separated on 31.12.2006, rt however, as per the Policy and the judgment of this Court the relevant date for separation of a family is 01.01.2004. As per the Policy, the date of separation should be depicted in the Pariwar Register and income of the family is to be computed on the basis of separate family. It is also submitted that the husband of respondent No. 6 works as Senior Platoon Commander in Himachal Pradesh Home Guards, owns 10 bighas of land and is enrolled as Contractor in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. On the other hand, 22 bighas of land is being owned by father-in-law of respondent No. 6, who also owns a building in Chakkar Shimla, which is rented out. The petitioner further submits that father-in-
law of respondent No. 6 also owns Light Goods Vehicle, in which husband of respondent No. 6 works as driver.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 33. The petitioner has further submitted that she is Post Graduate in Sanskrit and respondent No. 6 is only Matriculate and Prabhakar and as per her information Prabhakar is equal to 10+2, but the .
Himachal Pradesh School Education Board has not recognized Prabhakar equivalent to 10+2. As per the petitioner, awarding of additional 3 marks for higher qualification to respondent No. 6 is illegal and wrong. The petitioner has also raised objections on awarding of marks in personal of interview by the Selection Committee.
4. rtAt the first instance the appointment of re spondent No. 6 was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-
Appelalte Authority under the Anganwari Scheme, 2009, succinctly on the ground of her family income and the grounds cited above. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 10.05.2012, hence the present petition.
5. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed reply to the petition and refuted the stand of the petitioner. Precisely, the stand of respondents No. 1 to 4 is that respondent No. 6 has been rightly awarded 3 marks for higher qualification, as she was having result-cum-detailed mark having B.A. 1st year, which is higher qualification. So the selection of respondent No. 6 is not illegal and wrong. It is also averred that the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority) has heard both the parties and also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 4 ordered Tehsildar, Sadar, to re -verify the income certificate of respondent No. 6 and on re-verification it was found correct. As per respondents No. 1 to 4, the Selection Committee selected respondent No. 6 relying on the .
documents placed before it and also on the performance of the candidate in the interview. It is also submitted that rider of family separation on or before 01.01.2014 was removed in the amended guidelines, Notification dated 05.10.2009, and hence this clause has no application in the present of case. The family of respondent No. 6 was separated on 01.01.2009.
Further it is submitted that Himachal Pradesh University allowed rt respondent No. 6 to appear in B.A. 1st year's examination solely on the basis of Prabhakar certificate. Therefore, awarding of 3 marks by the Selection Committee for higher qualification to respondent No. 6 was right. It is also averred that the Selection Committee awarded marks on the basis of performance of candidates in the interview and the same were based on merits.
6. Respondent No. 6 has also filed reply to the writ petition, wherein it is submitted that the family of the petitioner was included in BPL on 30.11.2004, whereas the interview was held on 29.05.2010. So, the petitioner was not in BPL family at the time of applying for the said post. Respondent No. 6 has further submitted that 3 marks for higher qualification were rightly awarded to her, as per Notification (Annexure ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 5 R6-1/A). As per replying respondent, her family is living separately and the cut off date is not 01.01.2004, as the same subsequently stood amended on 12.10.2009 (Annexure R-6/B) and the cut off date stood .
changed to 1st January of the recruitment year. As respondent No. 6 was appointed in the year 2010 and her family was living separately w.e.f.
31.12.2006, therefore, the petition was alleged to be misleading. It is also submitted that the replying respondent has separate family and it is of denied that her husband works as Driver and enrolled as Contractor with HPPWD. rt
7. Replying respondent No. 6 has also averred that minimum qualification for the post of Anganwari Worker is 10 th standard and in case of higher qualification then 3 marks have to be awarded. So, 3 marks have been rightly awarded to her. It is further submitted that the family of the petitioner was included in BPL on 31.11.2012 and the interview was held on 29.05.2010. So, the family of the petitioner was not in BPL at the time of interview. Replying respondent No. 6 pleaded that the family should have been separated on 1 st January of the recruitment year.
Interviews were held in the year 2010 and her family was separated on 31.12.2006. It is further submitted that replying respondent possess higher qualification and both petitioner as well as replying respondent were given 3 marks for higher qualification. Prabhakar is equivalent to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 6 10+2 and admission can be sought on the basis of Prabhakar. As per respondent No. 6, there are no allegations of mala fides against the interview committee, as the same is a matter of discretion.
.
8. Rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 6 has also been filed, wherein stand of respondent No. 6 has been refuted and the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have of gone through the record carefully.
10. rtNow considering the fact that the marks were awarded to respondent No. 6 for higher qualification and whether Prabhakar is a higher qualification or not, this Court finds that the Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of the Anganwari Workers/Helpers, as enclosed alongwith the reply of respondents No. 1 to 4, provides that the candidate who possesses 10+2 and higher qualification will be awarded 3 additional marks. As per the above policy, the marks shall be given in the following manner:
"(A) Maximum 13 Marks for educational qualification will be given in the following manner:
(i) Percentage of marks in matric divided by 10 subject to the maximum of 10 marks.
(ii) Candidates who possess 10+2 and higher educational qualification will be given 3 additional marks.
11. Considering Prabhakar as 10+2, Himachal Pradesh University has given admission to respondent No. 6 in B.A. 1st year, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 7 meaning thereby that even the University recognizes Prabhakar as a higher qualification than matric, as matric pass candidate never gets admission in B.A. 1st year. This Court finds that selection of respondent .
No. 6 cannot be said to be arbitrary, against law/rules or is vitiated because of mala fides. This Court finds that the order, upholding the appointment of respondent No. 6, passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be arbitrary and against law.
of
12. The petitioner also tried to assail that Income of respondent No. 6 and averred that income of respondent No. 6 was more than the rt prescribed limit under the Scheme, but there is no evidence on record to conclude that the Income certificate issued to respondent No. 6 was against her actual income.
13. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merits and requires dismissal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
14. The writ petition, as also pend ing application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 5th July, 2016 (virender) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP 8 .
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:45:36 :::HCHP