Shakuntla Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Dev Darshan Sood, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court praying that Annexure P-3, which is the order passed by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla holding Smt. Savita Devi respondent No. 4 herein as eligible for relaxation of age, be declared illegal and respondent No. 3 be directed to call for fresh interviews in which the name of the petitioner be considered for the appointment as Anganwari worker. The facts pleaded by the petitioner herein are that she is permanent resident of village Palani in Tehsil Bharmaur. The fourth respondent Savita Devi was appointed as Anganwari helper and her appointment was challenged on the allegations that she does not belong to the feeder area of Anganwari centre and her income was more than from the criteria fixed in the guidelines and in this eventuality, her appointment requires to be quashed.

The appellate authority, which in this case was Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, accepted the appeal with the directions to the Child Project Officer, Bharmaur to conduct fresh interviews.

Thereafter, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who vide Annexure P-2 dismissed the appeal of the fourth respondent on 22nd May, 2010.

The case was again taken up by the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment H.P. Shimla pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 3939 of 2010, titled Savita Devi vs. State of HP. In that writ petition, the petitioner and the fourth respondent were the parties and this Court issued the directions in the following terms:-

As far as the age is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner had crossed the age of 20 but not attained the age of 21 years. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the power of relaxation is with the Director Social Justice and Empowerment. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, we are of the view that the matter requires consideration whether the petitioner is eligible for relaxation and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to look into the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till the orders are passed as above and communicated to the petitioner, the interim order passed by this Court will continue.

It is taking into consideration the decision of this Court the order has been passed. The Director noted at this juncture that petitioner Savita Devi approached the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba after decision of the writ petition who vide Annexure P-6 noticed that in terms of the directions issued by this Court the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment H.P. Shimla was to decide as to whether writ petitioner Shakuntla was entitled to the relaxation of age as prayed for. It is in these circumstances, the present petition has been instituted before this Court challenging the order supra as noticed by us.

At the outset, we observe that selections were held on 27.8.2007 and the parties have been running from one Forum to another for the last six years and this is the second round of litigation before this Court. We also notice that in the order challenged, the Director notices the contentions of Savita Devi to the effect that respondent No. 6 (sic 4) has never appeared in the interview, she was not even a resident of the feeder area of the Anganwari Centre when the interviews were conducted and was married in the village later in point of time from the date on which the interview was conducted and consequently she had filed the appeal after a period of three months. The Director records a positive finding that these facts have not been denied by this respondent and only urges that she had applied to the post but was not called for the interview. She was also eligible to apply for the post and no case for relaxation of age is made out. He also notes that at the interview, only two candidates had appeared and both of them were held to be under age. In fact even the petitioner was ineligible; there is no clarity as to whether she had in fact appeared in the interview.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that decision of the Director is contrary to the judgment of this Court in LPA No. 385 of 2011 holding that there is no relaxation provided for under the Rules. We cannot accept the situation because this is not the positive finding of this Court but only the contention of the counsel. Learned counsel then urges that the case for relaxation has not been considered in its true prospective and that the petitioner had been deprived of her valuable right of consideration, for selection/appointment as Anganwari worker. We cannot accept this submission. The Director holds that the fourth respondent was eligible for consideration. In any event, since interviews have taken place way back in 2007, we do not intend to interfere in this writ petition, which is dismissed.