Rama Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

Petitioner applied for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Nichla Kariyara in the year 2007. As per para (f) of the Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers, formulated by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. WLF-B(14)3/87 dated 11.4.2007, a female candidate having annual income less than Rs. 8,000 per annum(subsequently enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per annum) can only be considered and appointed against the post of Anganwari Worker. Selection Committee found the petitioner to be fit to be appointed against the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Nichla Kariyara after the interview and accordingly, vide communication dated 13.8.2007, Annexure P-4, directed her to submit her joining in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Dehra, District Kangra on 16.8.2007.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of the petitioner, respondent No.5 Smt. Sakindra Devi filed an appeal bearing No. 87 of 2007 before the appellate authority-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh alleging therein that the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker is against the Rules and as such, her selection may be quashed and set aside. Respondent No.5 claimed before the appellate authority that the family of the petitioner owns a vehicle and her father-in-law is a Document Writer and as such, by no stretch of imagination, income of the family can be said to be less than 12,000/- per annum. Appellate authority, besides affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, also called for a fact finding report from the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) Dehra. Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) vide office letter No. 1661/BC, dated 31.12.2008, reported that the annual family income of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 12,000/- in the year 2007. Aforesaid authority also concluded in the report that it stands proved that the father-in-law of the petitioner is a Document Writer and there is a taxi bearing No. HP-1D-0598 in the ownership of the petitioner's husband. Order dated 9.3.2009 passed by learned appellate authority below further reveals that the petitioner in her statement made before it, besides admitting the factum with respect to ownership of vehicle No. HP-01D-0598 also admitted that her father-in-law is a Document Writer. In the aforesaid background, appellate authority arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has obtained a false income certificate with a view to grab the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Nichla Kariyara as such, proceeded to quash her selection.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority, petitioner preferred an appeal No. 178/2009 before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra Division at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh on the ground that the appellate authority has wrongly returned the finding that she has obtained a false income certificate with a view to grab the post of Anganwari Worker, whereas, her family income is less than the permissible limit. Petitioner also claimed before Divisional Commissioner that since she fulfils the eligibility criteria and has rightly been selected by the Selection Committee, order passed by appellate authority deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, the fact remains that the Divisional Commissioner below dismissed the appeal, as a consequence of which, order passed by the appellate authority below came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court seeking therein following main reliefs:

""(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders Annexure - P/8 and Annexure - P/ vide which the selection of the present petitioner has been set aside.

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent not to terminate the petition from service during the pendency of the present writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that the appellate authority, after having received the complaint of respondent No.5, called for a fact finding report about annual income of the family of the petitioner from Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) Dehra, who in his report has categorically clarified that the annual income of the family of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 12,000/- in the year 207, as such, petitioner could not have been appointed as an Anganwari Worker. At the cost of repetition, it may be pointed out here that as per para (f) of the Scheme/Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Workers/Anganwari Helpers formulated by Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, only a female candidate having annual income less than Rs. 8000/-(subsequently enhanced to Rs. 12,000/-) can be appointed as an Anganwari Worker. In the case at hand, petitioner herein has admitted before the appellate authority that her husband owns a vehicle baring No. HP-01D-0598 and her husband as well as her father-in-law work as Document Writers, hence, no fault, if any, can be found with the findings returned by the appellate authority that the petitioner procured a false income certificate from the authority concerned with a view to grab post of Anganwari worker.

Perusal of documents as well as report of Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) Dehra adduced on record clearly suggests that at the time of selection, petitioner was member of a joint family headed by her father-in-law, namely Jagan Nath, who besides working as a Document Writer also owned 1-02-49 hectares of landed property.

Similarly, husband of the petitioner, apart from doing work of Document Writer, also owned taxi. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-6, contends that at the time of selection of the petitioner, she alongwith her husband and one son, was residing separately from the joint family and as such, income of the father-in-law of the petitioner could not have been taken into consideration, while determining the annual income of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. No doubt, perusal of aforesaid document, Annexure P-6, suggests that the family of the petitioner stood separated during the year 2007, but as per the Scheme formulated by the State Government for appointment to the post of Anganwari Workers/Anganwari Helpers, family of the candidate applying for the post of Anganwari Worker should be separated before 1.1.2004, as such, no benefit, if any, can be drawn from the aforesaid document by the petitioner. Similarly, affidavit, if any, sworn in by respondent No.5 (Annexure P-7), stating therein that she shall have no objection in case, appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of appellate authority is decided in her favour, is of no relevance, especially in light of order dated 30.6.2010, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanggra Division at Dharamshala, dismissing the appeal having been filed by the petitioner.

Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below, which are accordingly upheld, in result whereof, present petition fails and is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.