Sarla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Material facts, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the interview for the post of Anganwadi worker was held on 7th August, 2007 for Anganwadi Centre, Sulagwan. In sequel to the Petitioner''s interview, she was offered appointment letter on 10.8.2007 and she joined here duties at Anganwadi Centre, Sulagwan. Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, assailing the selection of the Petitioner. Same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 31.8.2007. Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and the matter was remanded by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur on 4th April, 2008. The Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur heard the appeal and dismissed the same on 21.8.2009. Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He accepted the appeal on 9.11.2009 and thereafter, he passed order in the same appeal on 3rd March, 2010.

Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the impugned orders Annexures P-7, dated 9.11.2009 and P-8, dated 3rd March, 2010 are contrary to law. According to him, the learned Divisional Commissioner, has come to a wrong conclusion that Feeding Centre (Paushtiak Ahhar Kendra) could be equated with "Shishu Palak". Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, learned Advocates for the Respondents have supported the impugned orders. However, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 has also strenuously argued that the Petitioner is not legally wedded wife of Prittam Chand and thus, she will not come within the definition of "family" under the Scheme framed by the Respondent-State. He has relied upon the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat on 23.11.2000. He has also relied upon the statement made by Shri Prittam Chand.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

It will be apt at this stage to take note of the Scheme/ Guidelines framed by the Respondent-State for filling up the post of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. The eligibility criteria has been prescribed in Clause 4 of the Scheme. Claus 7(b) provides 2 marks for experience. It is stipulated therein that one mark is to be awarded for every year experience as Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ ECCE subject to a maximum of 2 marks. Respondent No. 4 had been working in Feeding Centre, Dohag with effect from 7th December, 1982 to 30th August, 1986. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has equated "Feeding Centre" with "Shishu Palak" in the impugned order dated 9.11.2009. The Court is of the considered view that once a particular criteria has been prescribed, the same could not be diluted or deviated by the Divisional Commissioner. Maximum 2 marks are to be given for experience to those candidates who had worked in Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ECCE. Feeding Centre (Paustik Ahhar Kendra) could not be equated with "Shishu Palak" by the Divisional Commissioner. It is for the makers of the Scheme/Guidelines to identify the institutions. The Scheme had already identified the institutions as per Clause 7(b) of the said Scheme. The learned Divisional Commissioner could not substitute the new institution. The makers of the Scheme/Guidelines knew the nature of duties being discharged by the persons who were appointed in the institutions, mentioned in sub Clause (b) of Clause 7.

Respondent-State was directed to file supplementary affidavit by this Court on 4.10.2010. In sequel thereto, the supplementary affidavit was filed by the Child Development Project Officer, Bhoranj, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. Paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit reads thus:

That it is pertinent to mention here that there was no marks for the experience of a candidate who has worked under Poushtik Aahar Kendra (Feeding Centres) which were opened in the year 1986 till 1992 and were closed by the Department. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 4 has worked under Poushtik Aahar Kendra (Feeding Centres) at Dohag, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur H.P. and Respondent No. 4 has submitted the certificate before the Respondent No. 1 during appeal. Respondent No. 1 considered the experience of the Respondent No. 4 at par with the candidate who has worked as Shishu Palak whereas as per guideline i.e. Annexure - P/10, there is no mention for experience attained while working in Poushtik Aahar Kendra (Feeding Centres).

It is, thus, evident that marks could be allotted to Respondent No. 4 for working in Paushtik Ahhar Kendra (Feeding Centres), Dahog. This position has been clarified by the State as well.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 has strenuously argued that the Petitioner is not legally wedded wife of Prittam Chand. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause 4 of the Scheme, more particularly, expression ''family''. He has relied upon the order dated 23.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat and the statement made by Shri Prittam Chand. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar has drawn the attention of the Court to the copy of Pariwar Register and the voter card issued by the Election Commission of India to substantiate that the Petitioner is legally wedded wife of Shri Prittam Chand. The Court is not required to go into the entire gamut on this issue. Marital status of the Petitioner is not required to be looked into while considering her case for the post of Anganwadi Worker. The maximum income prescribed for the candidates to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker is `12, 000/-. All the candidates whose income was less than `12,000/- were eligible. Thereafter it was not open to the Divisional Commissioner to see whose income was less within the slab of `12,000/-.

The Divisional Commissioner accepted the appeal on 9.11.2009 and thereafter he passed another order on 3rd March, 2010. The learned Divisional Commissioner has not disclosed under what authority of law he has passed another order in the same appeal on 3rd March, 2010. The explanation given by him is that it happened due to technical flaw. It was not open for the Divisional Commissioner to pass another order after passing the final order.

Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders Annexures P-7 and P-8, dated 9.11.2009 and 3.3.2010 respectively are quashed and set aside. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.