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

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying for following reliefs:

(a) That impugned orders dated 25.11.2010 passed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner may very kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) That engagement of Respondent No. 5 herein being contrary to the policy, as is clear from Annexure P-5, may very kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to allow the Petitioner being next in merit, to serve as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Bhuran.

For the post of Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre, Bhuran, applications were invited. Smt. Veena Devi, present Petitioner, Smt. Arti Devi, private Respondent No. 5 amongst another were invited for interview. Selection Committee recommended Smt. Arti Devi for the post in question and she was given appointment by the competent authority.

Selection and appointment of Smt. Arti Devi was challenged by Smt. Veena Devi by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. According to Smt. Veena Devi even though she was interviewed, but, however, the Chairman of the Interview Committee did not formally record her presence and award her any marks for interview. Vide order dated 28.6.2008, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the appointment of Smt. Arti Devi on the ground that she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of income as laid down by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Aggrieved of the same, Smt. Veena Devi approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3 of 2010, which stood disposed of in terms of order dated 2.7.2010, operative portion of which reads as under:

Since the Petitioner herein is also similarly situated, this case is also disposed of in terms of the judgment extracted above. In case the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, who have been working are not paid their wages, the same shall be paid within a month. We also make it clear that the appellate Authority will peruse the records as to whether any marks have been awarded to the Petitioner for interview and if no marks have been awarded, appropriate action in that regard also will be taken. This Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

The matter was considered by Respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner afresh, who dismissed the appeal in terms of impugned order dated 25.11.2010. Hence the present petition.

Notice in the petition was issued and considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, on 28.3.2011 this Court directed the Respondents to produce the record. Having perused the same, on 25.4.2011 the Court passed the following order:

Shri Satish Kaushal, Child Development Project Officer, Tauni Devi, District Hamirpur is present. We have gone through the records. It is seen from the records that the Petitioner had filed an appeal on 22.8.2007 and reminder on 11.9.2007. If that be so, the appeal is within 15 days from the declaration of the result namely 17.8.2007. The stand taken in the impugned order that the appeal was barred by limitation cannot be accepted. Apparently, the Officer has not even referred to the records. The other reason in the impugned order for rejecting the appeal is that the Petitioner was not present on the date of interview. We have seen the records. The result sheet as such does not give any indication as to whether the Petitioner was absent. The only indication is in the application form. But absence is to be recorded in interview proceedings only. The interview proceedings show that the Petitioner was not eligible marking "NE". By being absent, a candidate does not become ineligible. That apart the result sheet shows that there has been an assessment of merit. All that apart, it has to be noticed that when the appeal was originally decided by the Appellate Authority on 28.6.2008, there was no such contention that the Petitioner was absent.

Since the counsel on both sides are not available today, post on 2.5.2011. The Officer present need not be present on the said date.

In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 25.11.2010, needs to be set aside. While doing so, we may record our displeasure at the manner in which Respondent No. 2 casually and callously dealt with the matter. He ought to have been more careful and vigilant in perusing the record while arriving at its conclusion, which undoubtedly is perverse as not having been borne out from the record. That apart, Respondent No. 2 failed to take into account the factum of ineligibility of Smt. Arti Devi on account of income criteria.

Consequently, order dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. There shall be a direction to Respondent No. 3 to complete the selection process initiated in terms of the advertisement in question; after calling upon all the applicants. He shall ascertain their eligibility, interview them and then select the most meritorious candidate. This shall be done positively within a period of four weeks from today.