Miss Sushma vs State of H.P. and Others

R.B. Misra, J.—In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 4.11.2009 (Annexure P-12) to the writ petition passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmour at Nahan, H.P.

With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being adjudicated finally at this stage.

It appears that the petitioner a matriculate, claiming to be the permanent resident of Naun, Tehsil Renuka, District Sirmour, H.P., had applied to the post of Anganbari Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Shamoila at Sangrah, District Sirmour. The petitioner was interviewed on 20.3.2008 and was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker vide letter dated 23.3.2008 and started working from 24.3.2008 as such. For selection to the post of Anganwadi Worker petitioner said to have submitted documents e.g. copy of Parivar Registrer, certificate to the effect that no member of her family is in employment of Government or Semi-Government, certificate of income of family, backward class certificate and certificate of bonafide Himachali. The petitioner by virtue of securing highest marks in the selection and since annual income of her family from all sources was accepted less-than Rs. 12,000/- as such, she was found suitable and selected.

Being aggrieved with the selection of the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 Smt. Asha Devi preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was transferred for adjudication before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmour. The respondent No. 6 contended that she is resident of Village Shamoila, Tehsil Renuka Ji at Sangrah, District Sirmour, had secured about 55 % marks in matriculation (in comparison to the petitioner who has secured about 45 % marks only in matriculation) and income of her family is below Rs. 12,000/-. Whereas the petitioner herein was having a income of Rs. 15,600/- as per income certificate dated 16.7.2007 issued to her by Tehsildar, Renuka Ji at Sirmour and the income of family of the petitioner is more-than Rs. 80,000/- per annum as her father is a registered contractor in PWD, he owns 40-00 & 20- 00 bighas of land at Village Naun and Maina, respectively in Tehsil Renuka Ji and the land situated at village Maina is very fertile on which family of petitioner is growing cash crop. Whereas, respondent No. 6 has no other income than from agriculture and it owns just 1-8 bighas of land. As averred by respondent No. 6 herein, the petitioner herein does not belong to feeder area of Anganwadi Centre-Shamoila as her residence is about 1 1/2 km from the Centre. In reference to such assertions made in the appeal, Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Nahan, District Sirmour, was directed to inquire into the various allegations levelled by the respondent No. 6 herein in her appeal.

As per report dated 18.10.2008 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) (enclosed as Annexure P-13), the annual income of the family of the petitioner was Rs. 17,100/- and petitioner was found to belong to the village Shamoila which is feeder area of Anganwadi Centre. After considering the report of SDM and other documents submitted by the parties, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, has observed that the petitioner herein owns 02-02 bighas of land in village Maina. As per the report of SDM, Nahan, and on the basis of the documents available, petitioner herein was having income of more-than Rs. 12,000/- per annum at the time of interview / selection to the post of Anganwadi Worker, as such, the appeal of respondent No. 6 herein was accepted and the selection of petitioner herein was quashed and the Child Development Project Officer, Sangrah, District Sirmour was directed to make compliance of the order.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. From perusal of the record, which is relevant for the present case, it appears that notification dated 1.4.2007 was issued by Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby a Selection Committee, comprising of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) as its Chairman, Child Development Project Officer, as its Member, Tehsil Welfare Officer / Asstt. Child Development Project Officer / Statistical Assistant, as Member was constituted and eligible criteria prescribed for the candidates to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker are as below:

a) Resident of the village (in case of Rural Area) / ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages / wards of the area;

b) For worker minimum qualification shall be Matric or equivalent and for Helper minimum Primary;

c) Age between 21-45 years;

d) From whose family no one is in Government / Semi Government employment / Service.

e) Only those belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st January, 2004.

f) Those whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 8,000/- per annum to be certified / countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.

As per revised notification dated 6.7.2007, the eligibility criteria for the engagement of Anganwadi Worker was to have the maximum of Rs. 12,000/- income per annum at the time of selection of Anganwadi Worker.

The reply on behalf of private respondent No. 6 has been filed. According to the assertions made therein the petitioner was selected to the post of Anganwadi Worker on the basis of incorrect certificate got prepared for the purpose of interview only, so that income of her family may be appear to be less than Rs. 12,000/-, whereas, on 16.7.2007, the petitioner was issued an income certificate by Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar, Renuka Ji at Sangrah, District Sirmour) that her annul income was Rs. 15,600/- per annum and such certificate was valid for one year and was available on the lower court''s case file. However, the petitioner had submitted another income certificate dated 18.3.2008 (enclosed as Annexure P-8) showing the income of her family as less than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. As asserted by respondent No. 6 the father of the petitioner is a Government contractor under Public Works Department and his income was in thousands of rupees per month, and the father of the petitioner owns big parcels of land at various places viz. village Naun, village Maina, village Shamoila etc. and these lands are cultivated and total income of father of the petitioner is in thousands of rupees per month. According to the respondent No. 6 the petitioner is unmarried, whereas respondent is a poor married lady and her family has just 1-8 bighas of uneconomic holding. Certificate dated 9.6.2008 shows that total land holding of petitioner''s father in village Jarag and his income from landholding in this very village was stated to be Rs. 14,000/- i.e. more than the income depicted in the income certificate dated 18.3.2008 (enclosed as Annexure P-8). In addition, father of the petitioner also holds land at village Maina which is indicated by jamabandi (enclosed as Annexure R-6/E). As mentioned in the report dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure P-13 to the writ petition), 1-12 bighas of land is owned by the petitioner''s father in village Maina which fetches him Rs. 2000/- per month. As has been asserted by respondent No. 6 that authorities considered the candidature on the basis of certificates / documents produced by the candidates and if any, controversy arises then only documents are analyzed and scrutinized and same is put to verification. Since the respondent No. 6 had questioned about the genuineness and validity of the income certificate issued to the petitioner, the authorities were within their right to give their finding on the income of the candidate. The different income certificates of the petitioner are reflecting the higher income than the one which was issued and asserted by the petitioner. The income certificate dated 16.7.2007 issued to the petitioner reflects the higher income of Rs. 15,600/- and the same cannot be reduced less than Rs. 12,000/- per annum just after a couple of months as per income certificate dated 18.3.2008. According to respondent No. 6 she belongs to village Jarag, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour and it is the feeding area of Samoila and in Annexure P-13, there is no report of any kind indicating that the respondent No. 6 does not belong to the feeding area.

An endeavor has been made by the petitioner through her rejoinder-affidavit to controvert the assertions made by respondent No. 6.

We have perused the documents and the pleadings and the rival contentions of the parties. After perusal of the documents we notice that the jamabandi Annexure R-6/E and the report of SDM Annexure P-13 reveal that the share of the father of the petitioner in village Maina landholding is 1-12 bighas. More so, Annexure P-15 indicates that land owned by the father of the petitioner in this village is 2-2 bighas. As per report of SDM Annexure P-13, the annual income of the family of the petitioner is Rs. 17,100/- and the certificate, dated 9.6.2008 of Patwari enclosed as (Annexure R-6/D), indicates that the total land holding of petitioner''s father in village Jarag and the income verified from the said landholding is Rs. 14,000/- and as per jamabandi enclosed as (Annexure R-6/E). The income of petitioner''s father from landholding at village Maina fetches her Rs. 2000/- per month. Such reference has already been mentioned in the report dated 18.10.2008 which is Annexure P-13, of the report of SDM. The income certificate dated 16.6.2007 (Annexure R-6/A/1) issued by Tehsildar just before the interview reveals that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 17,100/- which is much more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The fact finding has been given by the SDM and the same has been affirmed by Additional Deputy Commissioner.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the income of the petitioner''s family was not below Rs. 12,000/- as has been claimed by the petitioner in reference to her certificate dated 18.3.2008 (Annexure P-8) at the time of interview and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to be selected as Anganwadi Worker. Whereas, respondent No. 6 was entitled and was in possession of all the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the reasonable findings of fact, entered by two authorities. They are neither arbitrary nor perverse. Thus there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.