Neelam Kumari vs State Of H.P And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 285 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                             SHIMLA
                                      CWP No. 5539/2020




                                                                              .
                                     and COPC No. 275 of





                                     2020
                              Decided on: 6th January, 2021
    ________________________________________________________





    CWP No. 5539/2020

    Neelam Kumari                                                   ....Petitioner
                                        Versus





    State of H.P and others                                        ...Respondents

    COPC No. 275/2020

    Court on its own motion                                         ....Petitioner

                                        Versus

    The Director, Women and Child Development and anr.
                                           ...Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram



    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.




    1   Whether approved for reporting? No.
    ________________________________________________________





    For the petitioner:                     Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for the
                                            petitioner in CWP No. 5539/2020
    For the respondents:                    Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
                                            with    Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Vikas





                                            Rathor Additional Advocates General,
                                            Ms. Seema Sharma, Mr. Bhupinder
                                            Thakur and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur,
                                            Deputy      Advocates    General, for
                                            respondents.
                                            Through Video Conferencing

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

CWP No. 5539 of 2020.

The instant petition has been filed for grant of

.

following substantive relief:-

" That the respondents may kindly be directed to offer

appointment to the petitioner as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Borat, Block Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P with seniority and all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner, in support of her contention, that

she was at serial No.1 in the waiting list has appended with

the petition copy of the proceedings of the selection to the

post in question, that took place on 03.08.2007, wherein the

petitioner has been shown to be at serial No.1 in the waiting

list.

3. Believing version put forth by the petitioner to be

true, this court on 18.12.2020 passed the following order:-

" It is rather unfortunate that even now when a decision has been taken by the respondent, the

petitioner, who was at Sr. No. 1 of the waiting list and had been agitating her claim for the past 12-13 years, has not been offered appointment, rather, the appointment has been given to another candidate, who was at Sr. No. 2 in the waiting list and had never even bothered to agitate her claim. It appears that the Child Development Project Officer has mischievously and in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner, offered

appointment to a candidate, who, as observed above was at Sr. No. 2 in the waiting list.

In such circumstances, we deem it proper to

.

initiate contempt proceedings against the concerned Child Development Project Officer and the Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh.

Registry is directed to register separate contempt proceedings against aforesaid two persons. Learned Advocate General prays for and is granted two days'

time to rectify the error that has been committed by the Child Development Project Officer."

4. Not only this, separate contempt proceedings were

initiated against officers of the State, which came to be

registered as COPC No. 275 of 2020.

5. It is only thereafter that the original record was

produced by the respondents. The officials of the State

pointed out that the document submitted by the petitioner

was interpolated as the petitioner was never shown to be at

serial No. 1 in the waiting list, and only simplicitor waiting

list was prepared as is evident from perusal of the

proceedings, Annexure R-1.

6 The petitioner has clearly indulged in interpolating

the document (Annexure P-7) in order to gain unfair

advantage from this Court and the same cannot be lightly

brushed aside. Since the petitioner has approached this

court with unclean hands, therefore, she is not entitled to

any relief.

.

7 Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, we

direct registration of FIR against the petitioner at Police Post

Slapper, Police station Sunderngar, and the petitioner is

burdened with costs of Rs. 20,000/-, which shall be paid by

her to the respondents in the contempt petition for dragging

them into

unnecessary unavoidable litigation.

registration of the FIR, the investigating agency is directed to r After

complete the investigation within three months.

8 The writ petition stands dismissed, in the

aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

9 For compliance, list on 28.4.2021.

COPC No. 275/2020

In view of dismissal of the writ petition, as

aforesaid, the contempt petition is closed and the notices are

ordered to be discharged.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge January 06,2021 (Pankaj/Gaurav)