Geeta Devi vs State Of U.P. And Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 6403 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6998 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Geeta Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Upadhyay,Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav,K.N. Upadhyay,Sarita Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Girish Kumar Singh,Kamlesh Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

By way of present petition, petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 10.05.2007 passed by respondent no. 3.

On 11.04.2019, Court has passed following order;

"The order of rejection of representation of the petitioner raising the dispute regarding selection of respondent no.5 on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarti is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

A categorical stand has been taken in the writ petition that the respondent no.5 got appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karykarti on the basis of an income certificate of below poverty line (BPL), concealing the fact that her husband was posted as constable in P.A.C on the date of application. The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the income certificate dated 7.7.2006 discloses the estimated income of the petitioner's husband is Rs.1500/- monthly i.e 18,000/- per annum.

On the representation made by the petitioner, when no action was taken the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition no.14219 of 2007 which was decided on 16.3.2007.

The order impugned came to be based on the representation of the petitioner, thereafter.

The basis for rejection of representation of the petitioner is that her income certificate was cancelled vide order dated 9.11.2006, pursuant to an inquiry conducted by the Naib Tehsildar. The submission is that the basis of cancellation of income certificate dated 7.7.2006, itself is illegal, in as much as, in fresh inquiry made by Naib Tehsildar, only the estimated income of the petitioner's husband has been shown without providing any material. The estimated income was simply opinion of the Naib Tehsildar expressed in the inquiry. The Tehsildar has simply accepted the same while passing order dated 9.11.2006, without application of his own independent mind. There is a difference of only Rs.200/- per month in the income certified by the Tehsildar and in the income certificate dated 7.7.2006.

Further, submission is that the income certificate of the petitioner was cancelled in order to provide undue advantage to the respondent no.5, who was one of the applicants for appointment to the post of Aanganbadi Karyakarti.

It is further submitted that the opinion of the Tehsildar of estimated income of the petitioner's husband drawn in a subsequent inquiry made after a period of four months of the date of application could not be made basis to hold that the petitioner belonged to APL category (Above Poverty Line).

To test these submissions, it would be appropriate that learned Standing counsel shall produce the entire original record pertaining to the inquiry done by the Tehsildar into the matter of income certificate of the petitioner issued on 7.7.2006, as also the record of selection on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarti.

As prayed, list this matter on 19.4.2019 as first case.

In the meantime learned counsel for the respondent no.5 shall file the income certificate appended by her along with the application form."

Again, on 3.7.2019, Court has passed following order;

"Case was called out in revised list. Sri Girish Kumar Singh and Kamlesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 are not present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Magistrate, Deoria as respondent no.6 during the course of day.

Vide order dated 27.5.2019, Court has directed to learned Standing Counsel to provide a photo copy of the entire original records i.e. the application form of the petitioner with enclosures and also the application form of respondent No.5 with enclosures alongwith record of enquiry into the correctness of the income certificate of the petitioner made by the Tehsildar in the month of August, 2006. The same was provided by the learned Standing Counsel and also available on record.

I have perused the photo copy of the record and also seen the complaint letter of opposite party no.2 filed before the Tehsildar, Deoria on 18.08.2006 for enquiry of income of petitioner on which a report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar on 25.08.2006 declaring the income of the petitioner as Rs. 1,700/- per month in place of 1500/- per month as claimed by him in his application form and also certificate of income of Rs.1500/- dated 7.7.2006 was annexed. By perusal of the report of Naib Tehsildar dated 25.8.2006, it is not clear that what criteria has been adopted to determine the income of petitioner fixing the same Rs. 1,700/- per month in place of 1500/- per month and further, Rs.200/- per month is a very petty amount, which is not changing the financial status of petitioner, but changing the category of petitioner from putting her APL to BPL, which is benefiting the respondent no.5 and for which there is also allegation by the petitioner. Tehsildar, Rudrapur has passed the order dated 9.11.2006 on the basis of report of Naib Tehsildar, Mahendra cancelling the earlier income certificate dated 7.7.2006 fixing the income of petitioner Rs.1,700/- per month.

District Magistrate, Deoria is directed to conduct an enquiry in the matter of fixation of income of the petitioner and submit his report. In his report, he shall also provide the criteria used for assessment of income, which was supposed to be adopted by the Naib Tehsildar while conducting the enquiry and submitting his report dated 25.8.2006.

List this case on 24.7.2019.

In case affidavit is not filed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, he shall remain present before this Court alongwith relevant records as well as criteria for assessment of income.

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to send the copy of this order to District Magistrate, Deoria within 24 hours for compliance."

Pursuant to that order, affidavit of compliance dated 1.8.2019 on behalf of respondent no. 6 has been filed along with enquiry report dated 12.07.2019, which is taken on record. As per enquiry report dated 12.07.2019, income of the petitioner as claimed by her is only Rs. 1,500/- per month (18,000/- onwards) and impugned order dated 10.05.2007 is only based upon the fact that income of petitioner is Rs. 1,700/- per month, therefore, in light of enquiry report dated 12.07.2019, impugned order dated 10.05.2007 passed by District Programme Officer, Bal Vikas Pariyojana Deoria- respondent no. 3 is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.

The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 to pass fresh order considering the enquiry report dated 12.07.2019 after providing opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 5 maximum within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

Accordingly, petition is allowed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

Arvind