Kunta Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

i) That the order dated 10.5.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside and Respondents may be directed to initiate the fresh selection process for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre Basti Gunana.

ii) That the appointment of Respondent No. 4 Deepika as Anganwari Worker may be held void abolition.

For filling-up the post of Anganwari Worker, Anganwari Centre Basti Gunana, applications were invited by the Respondents-State. With the completion of selection process, Smt. Sunita Devi was appointed. Petitioner herein Smt. Kunta Devi assailed the said appointment before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, who vide order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) set aside the appointment of Sunita Devi. Aggrieved thereof, Sunita Devi filed an appeal but however order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was upheld vide order dated 28.7.2008 by the Divisional Commissioner. The same attained finality.

As such, vacant post was required to be filled up in accordance with law. Undisputedly, fresh selection process was initiated by the Respondent-State and pursuant thereto private Respondent Smt. Deepika now stands appointed.

Relentlessly, Smt. Kunta Devi also assailed her appointment before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla but her appeal stands rejected vide order dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P-6). Hence the present writ petition.

It is a matter of record that during the pendency of the appeal, Deputy Commissioner had called reports from the Tehsildar (Rural), Shimla with regard to the allegations made by Smt. Kunta Devi about the family income of Smt. Deepika being far in excess of the prescribed limit under the Policy and as such being ineligible could not be appointed. In her place Smt. Kunta Devi claimed her right of being appointed.

From the record produced and the affidavit filed by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, it is apparent that the allegations made by Smt. Kunta Devi, after verification of record and spot inspection, were found to be incorrect and false. Smt. Kunta Devi hails from a family having landed property measuring 3-48-96 Hects., which is in excess of the prescribed limit. Whereas family of Smt. Deepika has only 0-83-45 hects. of land. Her family income from all sources was found not to be more than Rs. 10,000/-per annum. As such, it cannot be said that private Respondent was ineligible for appointment to the post in question.

The impugned order is neither illegal nor perverse. It cannot be said that the same is based on erroneous appreciation of material placed on record. `Hence No. relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the Petitioner and the present petition devoid of any merit is disposed of as such.