Hem Lata vs Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner Ms. Hem Lata was appointed as an Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Sakroha (Bhanda) on 13.8.2007. Her appointment was challenged on 30.8.2008 by Ms. Reeta Devi (private respondent No. 3 herein). Without adverting to past litigation inter se the private parties, which we find is not of much consequence, we straightway refer to passing of the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 (Annexure P-6), by the Deputy Commissioner Mandi, District Mandi, in File No. 36/2013, titled as Smt. Rita Devi versus Smt. Hem Lata, as affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in terms of order dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure P-7), in case titled as Smt. Reeta Devi versus Smt. Hem Lata and others, whereby petitioner''s appointment as an Anganwari Worker stands cancelled, on the ground that her income was determined to be Rs. 89,220/- in the year 2007, the year of her appointment.

Undisputedly, the income prescribed under the Rules has to be less than the income found to be that of the present petitioner.

Significantly, petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.2.2013 before this Court. But then, despite the fact that her appointment stood cancelled in terms of this order, she did not prefer any statutory appeal. It was private respondent No. 3 Ms. Reeta Devi, who was seeking her appointment, who preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, on account of rejection of her claim. There is no explanation as to why no appeal was preferred by the present petitioner.

That apart, we find that both the authorities below have found the income of the present petitioner to be more than the prescribed permissible limit. This is based on an enquiry conducted by a competent authority. Petitioner''s husband, undisputedly, owns a tractor, which though may have been purchased on loan, but then it cannot be said that petitioner hails from a family which is so economically backward or deprivated, making her eligible for appointment as an Anganwari Worker.

In terms of impugned order dated 12.11.2013, appeal filed by Ms. Reeta Devi stands allowed to the extent that she be offered appointment. Income of Ms. Reeta Devi has been found to be Rs. 10,000/- per annum. As such we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The present petition, without any merit, is dismissed.

With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.