Kanchan Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner vide which he had allowed the appeal filed by the private respondent, Meera Devi and her appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker Centre Danoh, under ICDS Block Sadar, District Bilaspur was upheld. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that private respondent, Meera Devi, was appointed Aganwari Worker and her appointment was challenged by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur. The said appeal was decided by the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 27.9.2007 and he upheld the plea taken by the present petitioner challenging the appointment of Meera Devi as Anganwari worker and he also observed that the petitioner Kanchan Devi being appellant was also not eligible to be appointed since there is nothing to suggest that her family had separated prior to 1.1.2004. The Child Development Project Officer was directed by the Divisional Commissioner vide impugned order to hold fresh interview to fill up the post at the earliest. The appeal was preferred by the private respondent, Meera Devi as well as by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, who held that the husband of the respondent, Meera Devi may have been registered as a Contractor but there was nothing to show that the income of the family was more than Rs. 12,000/- per year. Therefore, she was held eligible for the post of Anganwari worker and the impugned order passed by Deputy Commissioner was set-aside vide which her selection had been set-aside and fresh interview were directed to be held. The appeal filed by Kanchan Devi, present appellant was also disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner.

I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, who has considered the whole material placed before him and had come to the conclusion that the income of the family of Meera Devi, respondent No. 4 was less than Rs. 12,000/-per annum. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the information received under the RTI vide which he has obtained the information that the income of father- in- law of the respondent was more than 12,000/- per month. Another document relied upon is Annexure P-7, in which the husband of respondent No. 4 was paid for the work Rs 2,80,190/-. However, there is nothing to suggest as to what was the income to respondent No. 4, Meera Devi''s husband from this work. Both these documents were not placed before the Divisional Commissioner and this Court exercising its jurisdiction can not go into the question of fact and to consider the effect of these documents. These documents should have been placed by the appellant before the Divisional Commissioner and the findings of fact recorded by the Divisional Commissioner that the income of respondent No. 4 was less than Rs. 12,000/- per annum and as such, he was eligible to be appointed as Anganwari worker, those findings do not call for interference by this Court while exercising this writ jurisdiction The petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is accordingly dismissed. Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.