Jyotasana Saklani vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Mohammad Rafiq, CJ

This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 03.09.2019, rendered in CWP No.680 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

The appellant in the writ petition had challenged the order dated 17.09.2016, passed by respondent No.4-Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohar, District Mandi, whereby respondent No.5, Tehsildar, Gohar was directed to cancel the income certificate issued in favour of the appellant by passing a speaking order and to submit report. The appellant had also challenged the order dated 30. 03.2017, whereby the Additional District Magistrate, Mandi accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.7-Kalpana Devi and directed that appointment should be given to her instead of the appellant.

Learned Single Judge has taken note of the findings recorded by the Tehsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohar, District Mandi. It was revealed in the inquiry conducted by the Tehsildar concerned that the income certificate filed by the appellant was incorrect, in which she had concealed the actual income of her family. It was also borne out from the report of the Tehsildar that after reverification, the income of the appellant was found to be Rs.37,000/- per annum and not Rs.17,000/-, as was earlier claimed by her. It was much beyond the eligibility limit of Rs.20,000/- per annum. Therefore, the certificate produced by the appellant at the time of interview was cancelled and consequently, she was rendered ineligible.

With the help of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record, especially the report of the Tehsildar dated 24.12.2016 (Annexure R-7/B), according to which, the Tehsildar, in the inquiry, found that the appellant concealed the fact that her husband Sanjay Kumar was employed as a Helper with Jagadamba Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sabha Samiti, Sianj on a monthly salary of Rs.2500/- and on that basis, the income of the family was assessed to be Rs.37,000/- per annum. Apparently, the income certificate was obtained by the appellant by making false declaration on the affidavit. Learned Single Judge has thoroughly examined all these aspects and did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tehsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohar, District Mandi.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in his order passed on 17.09.2016 had also directed the Tehsildar to initiate inquiry into the income certificate of respondent No.7. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7, however, submitted that the Tehsildar has conducted such inquiry and found the income certificate of respondent No.7 to be correct. In this regard, he has referred to the assertions made by respondent No.7 in paras 5 and 6 of the reply filed to the writ petition.

In any case, what was under challenge before the learned Single Judge was cancellation of appointment of the appellant and the learned Single Judge on scrutiny of the record, came to the conclusion that the foundation on which the appointment was secured by the appellant was based on false declaration and the income certificate was wrongly obtained, which eventually, on inquiry, was found to be incorrect and therefore, cancelled. The appointment of the appellant, therefore, has been rightly cancelled.

Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 03.09.2019, rendered in CWP No.680 of 2017, do not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.