Vijay Kumari vs State of H.P. and others

Surjit Singh, Judge

Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the year 2007, on the basis of Certificate of Income, Annexure P-2, which bears No. 215/M.C., dated 13.6.2007, issued by Executive Magistrate, Jawalamukhi. Persons, whose family income is below Rs. 12,000/- per annum, are eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Workers. Appointment of the petitioner was challenged by one Anita Kumari on the ground that income of the family, to which she belonged, was more than Rs. 12,000/-. Plea of said Anita Kumari was accepted by the Additional District Magistrate, before whom appeal had been filed and appointment of the present petitioner was revoked. Petitioner unsuccessfully approached the higher authorities. Thereafter, she filed a writ petition, challenging the revocation of her appointment. That petition came to be decided by this Court, alongwith other petitions, pertaining to similar disputes, vide judgment dated May 17, 2010. This Court held that so long as the Income Certificates, issued by the competent authorities, had not been cancelled, same were required to be treated as valid ones and, therefore, revocations of appointments of Anganwadi Workers, by holding that the income of their families were higher than Rs. 12,000/- per annum, were not justifiable. This Court observed that the competent authority, after holding inquiry and associating affected parties in those inquiries, could review the income certificates.

Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade-cum-Tehsildar, Jawalamukhi, with regard to income of the family of the petitioner, as also that of the Anita Kumari, who had challenged her appointment. After holding inquiry, Certificates of Income, issued in favour of the petitioner, copy Annexure P-2, and the one in favour of said Anita Kumari, were cancelled. Inquiry reports were submitted to the Additional District Magistrate, who passed order, Annexure P-10 and set aside the appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter, formal order of termination of services of the petitioner, was issued, copy of which is Annexure P-11. This order is dated 26.3.2011. Petitioner has challenged this order, Annexure P-11 as also order Annexure P-10 of Additional District Magistrate, by means of the present petition. Also, the petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5, Smt. Jeevna Kumari, who has been appointed against the post, to which the petitioner was initially appointed.

It is stated in the petition that inquiry was not conducted by the Additional District Magistrate himself and that it was assigned to the Tehsildar. Also, it is alleged that the Tehsildar, though did associate petitioner and Anita Kumari in the inquiry, his report is not based on the evidence, which was adduced before him, in the course of inquiry, inasmuch as there was no evidence indicating that income of the family of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum, at the relevant time, i.e. 1.1.2004.

Respondents, in their reply, have stated that Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, conducted inquiry and on such inquiry found that the income of the family of the petitioner, as also the family of Anita Kumari, was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum and consequently, their Income Certificates were cancelled and respondent No. 5, who was one of the candidates and whose family''s income was less than Rs. 12000/-, was given appointment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Original record, pertaining to the inquiry, conducted pursuant to the judgment dated May 17, 2010 of this Court, has been produced. That has also been looked into.

The record shows that inquiry was conducted by Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, who is also Executive Magistrate and who had issued the Certificate, Annexure P-2, in favour of the petitioner, as also the Certificate of Income, in favour of Anita Kumari. Record also shows that both the petitioner and Anita Kumari were associated in the inquiry. Their statements were recorded. Statements of Secretary (Panchayat) Ajay Kumar and Patwari of the Illaqua, Kamal Nain, had also been recorded.

Though Kamal Nain, Patwari and Secretary (Panchayat) Ajay Kumar did not say anything about the income of the joint family of the father-in-law of the petitioner, except for income from agricultural land, petitioner herself, in her statement, recorded by the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, admitted that her father-in-law and husband had joint family and she was also a member of that family. She stated that her husband separated from the joint family in the year 2009 and thereafter, he learnt the skill of carpentry. Though, she did say that her husband had been working as agriculturist when the family was joint and the income of the family was Rs. 11,500/- per annum, she did not explain what were the other sources of income of the family, when income from agriculture, as per statement of Patwari Kamal Nain, was only Rs. 2,550/- per annum. She stated that she had spent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on litigation. No doubt, she said that this money had been spent by her, out of her salary as Anganwadi Worker, but it is not believable that a joint family, having six members, (there were six members in the family of the petitioner at the relevant time) can afford to save Rs. 40,000/- out of the monthly salary of Rs. 1800/-, for being spent on litigation. This fact by itself speaks that income of the family, to which the petitioner belonged, was much more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Hence, no fault can be found with the inquiry report, or the order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner.

It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 could not have been appointed, because the income of the family to which she belonged, was also more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. If it is so, petitioner has every right to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 5, by filing an appeal to the competent authority, as was done by Anita Kumari to seek cancellation of appointment of the petitioner.

In view of the above stated position, writ petition is disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of.