Smt. Rajni Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—The petitioner had applied for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Lower Balh in Gram Panchayat Dhalara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner alongwith two other persons were called for the interview in the year 2007. The petitioner alleged that the Government sanctioned a new Anganwari Centre in feeding villages and the petitioner was the only eligible candidate to be considered for appointment as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Dhalara. It was alleged that the petitioner was resident of village Lower Balh, where the Anganwari Centre was created/opened. It was also alleged that the income of the petitioner was not more than Rs. 8000/- per annum and as such, she was eligible to be appointed as such. The petitioner alleged that she was selected and she joined in the said Centre on 17.8.2007. Respondent No. 7 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was decided on 2.6.2008 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 7 challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner before the Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the same in favour of respondent No. 7 by holding that the family of the petitioner was separated with effect from 18.1.2005, that is, after cut of date and as such, the status of her family is to be considered as joint family and income of the petitioner''s family was found accordingly above the prescribed limit. It was held that the petitioner was not eligible for the post and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, vide which he dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 7, was set aside. It was also directed that the appointment be given to respondent No. 7, who was next in merit. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner and alleging that her family had already separated in the year 2003 and, therefore, the income has to be considered separately and as such, she was eligible.

The petitioner has alleged that the copy of Pariwar Register also reflects that the family of the petitioner had been living separately since the year 2003 and Ration Card is also separate, which substantiates these allegations. All these evidence was to be led before the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner and this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction is not required to consider the documents and give its findings on facts. In view of the above discussion, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.