Veena Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed with the following prayer:

That the impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 7.6.2011 in case No. 29/2010 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and further Annexure P-3 and P-5 may please be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner may please be allowed to work as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Pohanj, Tehsil & District Hamirpur, H.P. with all consequential benefits.

Some admitted facts may be noticed first. Consequent upon initiation of the process for selection to the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Pohanj, District Hamirpur, H.P., both the Petitioners, Smt. Veena Devi and private Respondent No. 4, Smt. Madhu Bala, participated in the selection process and the latter (Smt. Madhu Bala) was selected vide result sheet Annexure P-1.

Being aggrieved the Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirur, H.P., who vide order dated 12.2.2008, Annexure P-2, cancelled the appointment of private Respondent No. 4, Smt. Madhu Bala, who took the matter in further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, H.P., who accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur for fresh inquiry, vide order dated 25.6.2008, Annexure P-3.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed CWP No. 1531 of 2009, titled Smt. Veena Devi v. State of H.P. and others, which was decided vide a common judgment dated 17.5.2010, Annexure P-4, with a direction to the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner) to consider the case(s) afresh in the light of the clarifications/directions/observations made in the judgment and take appropriate action within a period of six months.

Against the above backdrop, the impugned order dated 7.6.2011, Annexure P-6, text whereof is as follows, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur in case No. 29/2010, titled Smt. Veena Devi v. Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Touni Devi, District Hamirpur, H.P. and another, which along with Annexures P-3 and P-5 are under challenge in the present petition:

This order shall dispose of an appeal filed by Smt. Veena Devi wife of Suresh Kumar resident of village Pohanj, P.O. Banalag, Tehsil & District Hamirpur.

2.The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Madhubala was selected for the post of Anganwari Worker, Anganwari Centre, Pohanj, Tehsil Hamirpur by the C.D.P.O. Touni Devi. His selection was challenged by Smt. Veena Devi on the grounds of income of Smt. Madhubala, before the Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur. The Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur vide order dated 12.0.2.2008, accepted her appeal and cancelled the appointment of Smt. Madhubala. Smt. Madhubala filed an appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi vide order dated 25.06.2008 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to this Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders the Appellant filed petition before the Hon''ble High Court of HP. The Hon''ble High Court vide its judgment dated 17.05.2010 directed the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner) to consider the controversy between the parties as per guidelines issued by the State Government.

In the present case, the main contention is regarding income of Smt. Madhubala & Smt. Veena Devi and to verify the income of the parties, the Tehsildar, Hamirpur was directed vide this office order 25.11.2010 to verify the income of Appellant.

The Tehsildar, Hamirpur after hearing both the parties reported vide dated 25.04.2011 has reported that the annual income of both the parties is more than the prescribed limit. In case of Smt. Veena Devi it was Rs. 38,878/- and in the case of Smt. Madhu Bala, it was Rs. 23,600/-.

Therefore, after going through the record placed on file and after hearing the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for the parties and after perusing the report of the Tehsildar dated 25.04.2011, I have come to the conclusion that the income of both the parties is more than the prescribed limit therefore, the appointment of Smt. Madhubala is cancelled and the CDPO Touni Devi who was present in the court, is directed to fill up the post after holding fresh interviews in a month time.

A copy of this order be sent to CDPO, Touni Devi for compliance and file be consigned to GRR after its completion.

On 11.7.2011, the following order was passed by this Court in this matter:

11.7.2011 Present: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner.

Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.AG for Respondents No. 1 to 3.

CMP No. 6660 of 2011:

Allowed and disposed of.

CWP No. 5234 of 2011 & CMP No. 6659 of 2011:

Notice. Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.AG accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3.

No notice need be issued to the private Respondent at this stage. The Tehsildar, Hamirpur will stand impleaded as the additional 5th Respondent. There will be a direction to the additionally impleaded 5th Respondent-Tehsildar to be present before this Court with records pertaining to the assessment of the income of the Petitioner during the year 2007 when she was appointed as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre, Pohanj, on 28.7.2011. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner shall be continued as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre, Pohanj. Post on 28.7.2011.

The Petitioner will produce a copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition before the Tehsildar, Hamirpur within three days.

Copy dasti.

Sd/ (K.J.) C.J.

Sd/-(V.K.S.), J.

July 11, 2011

(karan/vs)

In compliance of the above order dated 11.7.2011, the records mentioned therein have been produced, a perusal whereof would go to show that annual income of both the Petitioner, Smt. Veena Devi and private Respondent No. 4, Smt. Madhu Bala, being Rs. 38,878/- and Rs. 23,600/-, respectively, is much beyond the prescribed limit. It being so, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 7.6.2011, Annexure P-6, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, H.P. canceling appointment of private Respondent No. 4, Smt. Madhu Bala as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Pohanj, District Hamirpur with a direction to the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Touni Devi to fill up the post after holding fresh interviews within a month.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with a direction to Respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, H.P. to take steps to fill up the post within three months from today and in the meantime allow the incumbent, who is presently working against the post, to continue till the candidate selected in the fresh process joins duty.

The records returned.