Sunita Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kullu dated 20.10.2011 contained in Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Dagsari, Gram Panchayat Kamand, Tehsil Anni, Distt. Kullu, H.P.

Sh. Devi Singh Kaushal, 8th respondent is present in person and has filed the affidavit in terms of our order dated 13.12.2011. Perusal thereof reveals that pursuant to the inquiry conducted regarding the genuineness of the income certificate issued to the petitioner vide Sr. No. 886/R dated 13.11.2006 by his predecessor was found to be incorrect as her income on re-verification is found to be `.27,000/- per annum from all sources and not `.7600/- as per the certificate which was earlier issued to her. Such certificate issued to the petitioner on 13.11.2006 and furnished by her along with application for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Dagsari, Tehsil Anni, Distt. Kullu, was thus cancelled vide order dated 8.12.2011, Annexure I to the affidavit. Along with the affidavit the revenue record pertaining to the landed property belonging to the family of the petitioner and the verification report have also been annexed.

As a matter of fact, this is a second round of litigation before this Court qua the same subject matter of dispute between the parties.

Initially though the 6th respondent was selected as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Dagsari yet her selection was assailed by the 7th respondent before the 2nd respondent vide an appeal registered as case No. 17-DC-2007. The same was accepted vide order Annexure P-1 and the appointment of the 6th respondent was quashed and set aside. Consequently the petitioner being at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list was appointed as Anganwari Worker in the said centre. The appeal preferred against the order, Annexure P-1 by the 6th respondent before the 2nd respondent was also dismissed. The 6th respondent had ultimately preferred a review petition before the 2nd respondent which was also dismissed. The 6th respondent had ultimately filed a Civil Writ Petition being No. 924/2009 before this Court in which the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker was assailed on the ground that her income at the relevant time was `.15,900/-viz over and above the prescribed limit. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 17.5.2010 with a direction to the 3rd respondent to decide the matter afresh after getting the authenticity and genuineness of the income certificate of the parties verified from the competent authority.

It is pursuant to the judgment of this court in CWP No. 924/2009, the 3rd respondent had got the certificate of income issued in favour of the petitioner and 6th and 7th respondents verified from the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent had submitted the report to the 3rd respondent certifying that the income of the petitioner from all sources on re-verification was found to be `.15,900/- per annum. The 2nd respondent after placing reliance on the report so submitted by the 8th respondent has arrived at a conclusion that the certificate of income furnished by the petitioner at the time of making application for the post in question was not genuine and as such she was not eligible for being appointed as Anganwari Worker. The appeal of the 6th respondent was thus accepted vide impugned order dated 20.10.2011, Annexure P-4.

It is worthwhile to mention here that against the cancellation of income certificate by the 8th respondent vide order dated 8.12.2011, Annexure I to the affidavit filed today in this Court, the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal before the SDO (C) i.e. 4th respondent, had she been aggrieved and dis-satisfied thereby in any manner whatsoever. It is the SDO (C), who is competent to examine the legality and validity of the inquiry conducted by the 8th respondent with respect to the genuineness of the certificate of income produced by her. In such a situation, the controversy brought to this court by filing the present writ petition is not required to be decided on merits as in our considered opinion the writ petition at this stage being premature is not maintainable. The same thus deserves to be disposed of accordingly.

In view of the above position, this writ petition being premature is dismissed, however, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order whereby the 8th respondent has cancelled the income certificate earlier issued to her before the SDO (C), Anni, District Kullu, the 4th respondent within one month from today. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to decide the appeal if preferred by the petitioner within two months thereafter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who is still working as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Dagsari shall continue to work as such.

Authenticated copy to the petitioner.