Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sadar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 December, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 20 th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
(I) LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 72 of 2015
Between :-
R/O
LEELA DEVI, W/O SH. SURJEET
KUMAR,
r VILLAGE &
SALWAHAN, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
P.O.
MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ANGANWARI WORKER IN ANGANWARI
CENTRE SALWAHAN-II, TEHSIL
SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. DIGVIJAY SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
AND EMPOWERMENT, GOVT. OF H.P.,
SHIMLA, H.P.
2. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MANDI
DIVISION, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:59 :::CIS
2
3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
.
OFFICER, BALH, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
5. LEELA DEVI, W/O SH. SURJEET
KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE & P.O.
SALWAHAN, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ANGANWARI WORKER IN
ANGANWARI CENTRE SALWAHAN-II,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
6. GOVERDHANI DEVI, W/O SH,. LEKH
RAM, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. SALWAHAN,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADOVCATE
GENERAL WITH MR. NAND LAL THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR R-1 TO R-4)
(MR. MOHIT THAKUR, ADVOCATE,
FOR R-5)
R-6 EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2015 PASSED
IN LPA No. 72 OF 2015)
(II) LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 156 of 2014
Between :-
SMT. SUNITA DEVI, W/O SH. SUDAMA
RAM, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. SALWAHAN,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...APPELLANT
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:59 :::CIS
3
(BY MR. MOHIT THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
.
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
AND EMPOWERMENT, GOVT. OF H.P.,
SHIMLA, H.P.
2. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MANDI
DIVISION, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH. r
4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
OFFICER, BALH, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
5. SMT. SUNITA DEVI, W/O SH. SUDAMA
RAM, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. SALWAHAN,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
6. GOVERDHANI DEVI, W/O SH,. LEKH
RAM, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. SALWAHAN,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADOVCATE
GENERAL WITH MR. NAND LAL THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR R-1 TO R-4)
(MR. DIGVIJAY SINGH, ADVOCATE,
FOR R-5)
R-6 EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 05.11.2015 PASSED
IN LPA No. 72 OF 2015)
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:59 :::CIS
4
____________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission this day,
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the
.
following :-
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals arise out of judgment dated
08.08.2014, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 707 of
2013. Being connected, these appeals are taken up together for
decision.
being referred to hereinafter.
For convenience, facts from LPA No. 72 of 2015 are
Status of parties referred to
hereinafter is as described in LPA No. 72 of 2015.
2. Facts
2(i) A selection process commenced in the year 2007 for
recruitment to the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre
Salwahan-II, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Smt. Goverdhani
Devi-respondent No. 6 was selected and appointed as an
Anganwari Worker against the said post.
2(ii) Selection and appointment of Smt. Goverdhani Devi
was assailed by Smt. Leela Devi (appellant in LPA No. 72 of
2015) before the Deputy Commissioner Mandi. Vide order dated
07.11.2017, the Deputy Commissioner Mandi set aside the
appointment of Smt. Goverdhani Devi and directed respondent
No. 4-Child Development Project Officer Balh, District Mandi to
offer the appointment to next in the merit list. Smt. Sunita Devi-
.
respondent No. 5 (appellant in LPA No. 156 of 2014) was next in
the merit list.
2(iii) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
Mandi on 07.11.2007 was challenged by Smt. Goverdhani Devi
before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi. Smt. Sunita Devi-
respondent No. 5 was also impleaded as a respondent before the
Divisional Commissioner Mandi. The appeal was dismissed by
the Divisional Commissioner on 20.02.2009.
2(iv) Smt. Goverdhani Devi instituted a petition before the
Divisional Commissioner for review of the order dated
20.02.2009. Her review petition was dismissed on 27.06.2009.
Smt. Goverdhani Devi accepted the verdict and did not assail it
any further.
2(v) Smt. Leela Devi was appointed as an Anganwari
Worker on 06.07.2009. On 4.11.2011, Smt. Sunita Devi-
respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner Mandi challenging the appointment of Smt. Leela
Devi as an Anganwari Worker. Her appeal was accepted on
05.04.2012. The Child Development Project Officer was directed
to offer the appointment to next in the merit list. As Smt. Leela
Devi was lower to Smt. Sunita Devi in merit list, the
implementation of the order dated 05.04.2012 would have meant
.
removal of Smt. Leela Devi from the post. Smt. Leela Devi
challenged the order dated 05.04.2012 before the Divisional
Commissioner. Her appeal was dismissed on 12.02.2013
2(vi) Smt. Leela Devi filed Civil Writ Petition No. 707 of
2013 assailing the order dated 12.02.2013. Pursuant to an interim
order dated 19.02.2013 passed in the writ petition, Smt. Leela
Devi continued to serve as an Anganwari Worker. Learned Single
Judge vide judgment dated 08.08.2014 allowed the writ petition
and directed the official respondents to conduct a fresh selection
for the post of Anganwari Worker in the concerned Anganwari
Centre. In the interregnum, the prevailing arrangement,
whereunder Smt. Leela Devi was working as an Anganwari
Worker, was ordered to be maintained.
2(vii) Against the judgment dated 08.08.2014, rendered by
the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 707 of 2013, two Letters
Patent Appeals have been preferred. LPA No. 72 of 2015 is by
Smt. Leela Devi (petitioner in the writ petition), whereas LPA No.
156 of 2014 is by Smt. Sunita Devi (respondent No. 5 in the writ
petition).
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the records.
4. Contentions
.
4(i). Learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Leela Devi
(appellant in LPA No. 72 of 2015) submitted that appellant has
continued to serve as an Anganwari Worker ever since her
appointment on 06.07.2009. She has gained experience against
the post. After working for such a long period of time, it is not
justified to quash her appointment and to direct holding of fresh
selection process. It was also argued that appointment of Smt.
Goverdhani Devi was successfully challenged by Smt. Leela
Devi, therefore, Smt. Leela Devi should be held entitled to enjoy
the fruits of her successful litigation.
4(ii) Learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Sunita Devi
(appellant in LPA No. 156 of 2014) contended that Smt. Sunita
Devi was next in the merit list. Therefore, after setting aside the
appointment of Smt. Goverdhani Devi, it was the appellant-Smt.
Sunita Devi who deserved to be appointed as an Anganwari
Worker. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that fresh
selection process should not have been ordered, instead it is
Smt. Sunita Devi-appellant who deserves to be appointed as an
Anganwari Worker being next in the merit list after Smt.
Goverdhani Devi.
5. Observations
.
5 (i) It is not in dispute that initially Smt. Goverdhani Devi
was selected and appointed as an Anganwari Worker. Her
selection and appointment was challenged by Smt. Leela Devi.
Smt. Goverdhani Devi's appointment was set aside by the
competent authority. Smt. Goverdhani Devi accepted the order on
27.06.2009.
5(ii) to
It is also not in dispute that Smt. Leela Devi
(appellant in LPA No. 72 of 2015) was not next to Smt.
Goverdhani Devi in the merit list. Therefore, after setting aside
the appointment of Smt. Goverdhani Devi, appellant-Smt. Leela
Devi had no right to hold the post in question. Her continuation on
the post w.e.f. 06.07.2009 will not condone the fact that she is
below Smt. Sunita Devi (appellant in LPA No. 156 of 2014) in the
merit list. Merely because Smt. Leela Devi carried the torch
against the selection and appointment of Smt. Goverdhani Devi,
would not mean that she is to be appointed ignoring the higher
merit of other candidates. Her continuation as an Anganwari
Worker till date is only on account of interim orders passed in
successive litigations.
5(iii). Smt. Sunita Devi challenged the appointment of Smt.
Leela Devi for the first time by filing an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner, District Mandi on 04.11.2011. Smt. Sunita Devi
.
was, no doubt, higher in merit than Smt. Leela Devi, however,
she chose to assail the appointment of Smt. Leela Devi made on
06.08.2009 by filing an appeal only on 04.11.2011. As already
observed, Smt. Leela Devi in view of her lower merit, though had
no right to hold the post in question, however, due to a long
intervening period, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as
noticed above, Smt. Sunita Devi who chose to wake up from her
slumber two years after the appointment of Smt. Leela Devi as an
Anganwari Worker, also cannot be allowed to be appointed on
the said post.
The judgment rendered by learned Single Judge
directing the official respondents to conduct fresh selection
process for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre
Salwahan-II, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper. No
interference in the said directions is called for.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals
are dismissed. However, considering the fact that both the
appellants i.e. Smt. Leela Devi and Smt. Sunita Devi have
become overage, we direct that they shall be granted age
relaxation to participate in the fresh selection process for
appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. The fresh selection
.
process shall be completed within a period of three months from
today. It is made clear that order has been passed in the peculiar
facts of the case. Both the appeals stand disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
r to (Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
20th December, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
