Krishna Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Writ petition filed by the appellant for saving her appointment as an Anganwari Worker was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 07.08.2015. The appellant has assailed this judgment in the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2(i) Interviews for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kurmala, District Solan were held on 23.07.2007. The appellant and respondent No. 4 participated in the selection process. Appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 04.08.2007 and she joined as such on 08.08.2007.

2(ii) Appellant’s selection as Anganwari Worker was challenged by respondent No. 4 by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Solan on 21.08.2007. The Deputy Commissioner Solan dismissed the appeal on 21.05.2008. This order was upset by the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner Shimla on 04.09.2008. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to decide the matter afresh. After remand, the Deputy Commissioner allowed respondent No.4’s appeal on 23.11.2009 and set aside the appointment of the appellant. CWP No. 4872 of 2009 instituted by the appellant in this Court against the aforesaid order was disposed of on 17.05.2010 alongwith other connected matters with directions for fresh consideration of the matter. The Deputy Commissioner again cancelled the appointment of the appellant on 08.03.2011. The appellant’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority/Divisional Commissioner on 04.09.2014. The appellant assailed this order in CWP No. 7311 of 2014. The writ petition was also dismissed on 07.08.2015, hence this appeal.

We have heard leaned counsel for the parties.

The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the challenge of respondent No. 4 to the appellant’s selection on the post of Anganwari Worker was time barred. Therefore, merits of the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Commissioner Solan could not have been gone into. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in terms of para 12 of the ‘2007 Scheme for Engagement of Anganwari Workers’, the appeal could have been filed before the Deputy Commissioner within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result. The result was declared on 23.07.2007, whereas the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 on 21.08.2007 having been filed beyond the permissible time limit could not have been decided on merits.

The facts on record do not lead credence to the above factual argument. It is not in dispute that the letter of appointment was issued to the appellant on 04.08.2007, pursuant to which, she joined as an Anganwari Worker on 08.08.2007. Respondent No. 4 had categorically pleaded in her reply to the writ petition that she became aware about the result of selection process only on 08.08.2007 on joining of the appellant on the post in question and thereafter, she filed the appeal on 21.08.2007. No doubt, in terms of para 12 of the ‘Scheme for Engagement of Anganwari Workers’, any candidate aggrieved by the order of appointment of Anganwari Worker/Helper, could file appeal to the Deputy Commissioner within 15 days from the declaration of the result. However, in the instant case, there is no contemporary material available on record demonstrating as to when the result of selection process was declared and the manner in which it was notified or published. In the circumstances, uncontroverted factual plea of respondent No. 4 that she became aware about the declaration of result on 08.08.2007 i.e. on the joining of the appellant on the post in question, has rightly been accepted by the learned Single Judge. The filing of appeal by her on 21.08.2007 i.e. within a period of 15 days from 08.08.2007 has to be held within the prescribed period of limitation. There is no force in the contention of the appellant that respondent No. 4’s challenge to appellant’s selection/appointment was time barred. There is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

No other point was urged.

For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.