Asha Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:-

"a) That the impugned orders above stated may very kindly be quashed and set aside and so also the engagement of private respondent herein as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, More-balla with directions to the respondents to appoint petitioner as Anganwari Worker in concerned Anganwari Centre, in the interest of law and justice. In the alternative, matter may very kindly be remanded back to the said authority for decision afresh in accordance with law within the time-frame as is deemed fit by this Hon''ble Court."

In view of the alternative prayer and discussion hereinafter, at this stage, there is no need to enter into the merits of the case and we proceed to dispose of this petition finally.

Pursuant to our order passed on the previous date Shri S.K. Chaudhary, CDPO, respondent No.3 is present in person and has produced the record pertaining to selection and appointment of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre More-Balla. He submits that the record pertaining to assessment of the income of the petitioner and the 4th respondent could not be produced being not available and rightly so as the same may be available in the office of Tehsildar Harchakian, District Kangra, the issuing authority who is not party before us in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that pursuant to the direction of this Court in earlier writ petition bearing No.2066/2010 filed by the petitioner, the first appellate authority was required to examine the authenticity of the income certificate furnished by the 4th respondent along with her application for appointment as Anganwari Worker after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and in the event of the same being not genuine to cancel it, however, this has not been done and to the contrary vide order Annexure P-1, impugned in the present writ petition, appeal has been dismissed on absolutely a new ground that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by the petitioner.

We find considerable force in the submissions so made on behalf of the petitioner for the reason that admittedly CWP No. 2066 of 2010 was filed by the 4th respondent in this Court against quashing of her appointment by First and Second Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of income certificate she furnished was not found to be genuine. This Court in its Judgment dated 17th May, 2010 in CWP No.1096 of 2010 and its connected petitions including CWP No.2066 of 2010 filed by the 4th respondent had inter alia directed as under:-

"6. There will be a direction to the appellate authority in these cases, to take appropriate steps in the cases where a dispute on income is involved, to get the same duly processed by the competent authority, in the matter of cancellation. Necessary steps in that regard will be taken and action finalized within a period of four months from the date of production of this judgment to the competent authority. That competent authority will also afford an opportunity to the affected party to participate in that proceedings. Subject to the outcome of the action thus taken by the competent authority, on the income certificate already issued to the incumbent, the appellate authority will take appropriate action within two months. ............................................. ........................... We may make it clear that the inquiry will be on the basis of the Policy/Guidelines as existed at the time of appointment."

Therefore, on remand of the case by this court, it was obligatory on the part of 2nd respondent to have examined the authenticity and genuineness of the income certificate furnished by the 4th respondent along with her application for the post of Anganwari Workers. The 2nd respondent, however, has failed to do so and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on altogether a different ground that memorandum of appeal was not signed by the petitioner. There is not only non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court but the controversy that the income certificate furnished by the 4th respondent was not genuine also remain unresolved.

In view of the above, issuance of a direction to the 2nd respondent to decide this matter afresh in accordance with the directions of this Court in CWP No.1096 of 2010 and its connected petitions including CWP No. 2066 of 2010 would serve the ends of justice.

Consequently there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove and also the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 and its connected petitions, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, there shall be no disengagement of the 4th respondent in case she is still continuing as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Moreballa The writ petition stands finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.