Smt. Meera Devi vs Deputy Commissioner Kullu, District Kullu, HP, Divisional Commissioner, District Kullu, H.P., Child Development Project Officer Neether, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. and Smt. Praveena Devi

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) That this writ petition be allowed and the order dated 15.9.2011 passed by respondent No.1 be set aside and quashed and the petitioner be appointed as Ananganwadi worker in Ananganwadi Center Shill, PO Deem, Tehsil Nirmand Distt. Kullu, H.P.

(ii) That in the meantime the respondent No. 3 may not be allowed to work as Ananganwari Worker till the decision by this Hon''ble Court as the respondent No. 3 wants to grave this post by all false means.

This is a second round of litigation before this Court qua the subject matter of dispute between the parties.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the third respondent both applied for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Sheel, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu. As per the certificate of income, furnished by petitioner, her annual income from all sources was Rs. 7000/-, whereas that of the third respondent Rs. 9000/-, at the relevant time. It is the third respondent, who was selected and appointed as Anganwari worker in the aforesaid centre. The petitioner had successfully assailed the appointment of the third respondent, by filing an appeal registered as 83/DC/2007, as vide order dated 28.4.2008, (Annexure P-4), her appeal was accepted by the first respondent.

It seems that the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in an appeal preferred by the third respondent, had reversed the order Annexure P-4 and held that the appointment of the third respondent as Anganwari worker was proper.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Divisional Commissioner Mandi approached this Court, by filing CWP No.1981/2008, which alongwith other connected petitions, was disposed of vide judgment dated 17.5.2010. The case of the petitioner was remanded to the Appellate Authority, with a direction to decide the same afresh after getting the authenticity and genuineness of the income certificates of the parties verified from the competent authority and in the event of the same being not found in order, to cancel the same.

On remand of the case, the first respondent got re-verified the certificate of income of third respondent from the Executive Magistrate, as is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-3) and on the basis of the report received from the Executive Magistrate, the first respondent held that the income certificate furnished by the third respondent was correct. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

Since the so called report of the Executive Magistrate has not been placed on record, this Court passed the following order on 15.12.2011 in this writ petition:

There will be a direction to the Executive Magistrate, Nirmand to be present before this Court with records pertaining to the assessment of the income of the third respondent, in respect of the certificate issued in the year 2007 as well as the re-verification conducted in the year 2011, on the next date of hearing.

Post on 5.1.2012.

Consequently, the Executive Magistrate is present in person with the relevant record. As per the inquiry conducted by the Executive Magistrate, he recorded the statements of a few persons, including that of the father-in-law of the third respondent. According to the statements so recorded, the third respondent and her husband are living separately and are no more members of joint family. One Shri Deep Chand, however, stated to the contrary that the respondent and her husband are still living in the joint family. As per the report of Executive Magistrate, the husband of the third respondent is living in the house of one Nikka Ram. The statement of said Nikka Ram has, however, not been recorded.

In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner was still aggrieved and dissatisfied by the re-verification, in respect of the income of the third respondent, by the Executive Magistrate, Nirmand, she could have assailed the same before the Competent Authority. It is the SDO (Civil) who could have examined the legality and validity of the inquiry conducted by the Executive Magistrate and if need be, he SDO (Civil) could have himself conducted further inquiry to arrive at just conclusion regarding the income of the third respondent. So, the present petition is premature at this stage, because this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the issue, raised in this writ petition. In view of the above position, this writ petition being premature is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, against the report regarding verification of the income of the third respondent.

Before parting with the judgment, we make it clear that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal/petition, the SDO (Civil) will not raise objection of limitation etc. and decide the question of authenticity and genuineness of the certificates of income furnished by the petitioner and the third respondent, being not biased and influenced by the impugned order dated 15.9.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the first respondent on the basis of verification report submitted by the Executive Magistrate, Nirmand.

The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.