CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Banti Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 26 July 2011 · Citation: (2011) 07 SHI CK 0139

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · Sanjay Karol, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 3892 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 341 words

Sanjay Karol, J.—Record perused and returned.

In terms of impugned order dated 6.4.2011 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, Petitioner''s appeal stands dismissed only on the ground of limitation. It appears that before passing the impugned order entire record was not perused by the authority below.

2.

Record reveals that interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in question was conducted on 1.8.2007 and upon declaration of the result on 8.8.2007, private Respondent was issued order of appointment on the very same day. She joined on 14.8.2007 and on 17.8.2007 itself, a complaint was made by the Petitioner, who was aggrieved of the same. The same was sent by registered A.D. post. Receipt and acknowledgement due is placed on record by the Petitioner, which is annexed as Annexure P-5 (colly.). Evidently, the letter was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, on 17.8.2007 itself. There is no dispute about the same. A similar complaint was also sent to Hon''ble the Chief Minister by the Petitioner on 23.8.2007. It appears no action was taken on the same. There is also no dispute about the same. However, another joint complaint was made by the Petitioner alongwith co-villagers which was sent on 4.10.2007. The authorities acted only on this complaint and significantly in the report submitted by the Supervisor to the Deputy Commissioner, it clearly stands mentioned that private Respondent''s husband is a member of the Panchayat.

3.

Be that as it may be, without going into the merits of the matter, since the complaint filed by the Petitioner was within time, impugned order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Additional District Magistrate for consideration of the same afresh.

4.

Needless to add parties shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before any order is passed on merits. The appeal shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the Petitioner.

5.

For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is disposed of.