Sunita Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—For the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Chuhar applications were invited. Smt. Lata Devi (private Respondent No. 5) appeared for the interview on 7.8.2007. She was selected and given appointment on 13.8.2007. Petitioner Sunita Devi assailed the same before the appropriate authority by filing an appeal on 11.9.2007. The same was dismissed on 2.9.2008. Various orders were passed by the authorities including the Addl. District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner and finally this Court after issuing certain directions in CWP No. 2623 of 2010, titled as Sunita Devi v. State of H.P. and Ors remanded the matter back to the Divisional Commissioner for deciding the case afresh. Now in terms of impugned order dated 25.11.2010 Petitioner�s appeal stands rejected. Hence the present petition.

Undisputedly parties were afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and representation by the authority below.

Smt. Lata Devi was selected on 7.8.2007 and given appointment on 13.8.2007. Smt. Sunita Devi assailed the same by filing an appeal only on 11.9.2007 which is much after a period of 15 days prescribed under the guidelines which have been held to be mandatory by this Court in CWP No. 1096 of 2010, titled as Raksha Devi v. State of H.P. and Ors.

On the asking of the Sunita Devi we called for the records and ourselves perused the same for ascertaining the factual position. According to her appointment was challenged in terms of letters dated 23.8.2007 (Annexure P-2) and 24.8.2007 (Annexure P-19). Perusal of record, as placed before us, reveals that these communications were never received by the authority. Only two letters, one written by the Petitioner on 11.9.2007 and another subsequently written by her father-in-law are on record. On Annexure P-2 and P-19 there is no endorsement of any receipt by the authority. Also Sunita Devi could not show any contemporaneous material to support her contention that she had got these communications received in the office. There is presumption in favour of the authority with regard to the maintenance of the record in a proper manner. Also the Addl. District Magistrate had himself perused the record. Even he did not notice the existence of letters Annexure P-2 and P-19 on the record. Sunita Devi could have herself inspected the record and taken the plea which is not sought to be taken here. In Court she has taken a rather strange plea if not dishonest plea that letter dated 11.9.2007 is not written by her and is in fact forged by the authority. This plea is absolutely an afterthought. Undisputedly her father-in-law had also been writing on her behalf. Letter dated 11.9.2007 could also have been written by someone else on her behalf. Why would the authorities forge the letter? She has not named any one for the same either.

At some stage all litigation must come to an end. Rather than spending their time in Courts Anganwadi Workers must focus on looking after the needs and affairs of the children in schools who in fact are the future of this country.

We find no illegality/infirmity in the impugned orders. It cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the Petitioner stands violated. No ground for interference is thus made out. There is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.