Usha Devi Wife Of Shri Mango Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5027 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                ON THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
                            BEFORE




                                                       .
            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA





               CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3423 of 2013
         Between:-





         USHA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MANGO RAM,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE     SUNET,
         TEHSIL FATEHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA,
         HIMACHAL PRADESH.





                                                     .....PETITIONER

         (BY SH. SANJAY JASWAL, ADVOCATE)

         AND

    1.     STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
           THROUGH SECRETARY (SOCIAL
           AND JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT)
           TO THE GOVERNMENT OF


           HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

    2.     DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
           JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT,




           HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.





           ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
           KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, H.P.

    3.     CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,





           FATEHPUR, TEHSIL FATEHPUR,
           DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

    4.     SMT. SUJATA DEVI
           WIFE OF SHRI BABLI,
           VILLAGE SUNET, TEHSIL FATEHPUR,
           DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

                                        .....RESPONDENTS

         (SH. KUNAL THKAUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
         SH. SHRIYEK SHARDA, SENIOR ASSISTANT ADVOCATE
         GENERAL FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4.




                                      ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:13:16 :::CIS
                                          2


          SH. HAMENDER SINGH CHANDEL, ADVOCATE, FOR
          RESPONDENT NO.5.
    _________________________________________________________________




                                                                .
                 This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court





    passed the following:

                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner's selection and appointment as Anganwari

Worker on 14.08.2007 was found to be made on the basis of an

income certificate, which was later on cancelled by the Tehsildar

vide order dated 20.06.2011. The cancellation of the income

certificate was upheld by all the competent authorities vide their

concurrent orders. The orders passed by the authorities were

upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1233/2012.

Since the cancellation of income certificate had been upheld in CWP

No. 1233/2012, therefore, the selection and appointment of the

petitioner was set aside by respondent No.3 vide order dated

15.03.2013. This order has been assailed in the instant writ

petition.

2.(i) The petitioner and respondent No.5 participated in the

selection process for the post of Anganwari Worker in Angawari

Centre Sunet, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P.. The petitioner

was selected and she joined as such on 14.08.2007. Respondent

No.5, challenged the petitioner's appointment on the ground of her

having income higher than the outer income limit prescribed under

the applicable policy.

2(ii) The Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, allowed the

complaint filed by respondent No.5 on 22.11.2008 and set-aside the

appointment and selection of the petitioner. Appeal filed by the

.

petitioner was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on

25.05.2010. The order passed by the Additional District Magistrate

Kangra on 22.11.2008 was upheld. The petitioner, thereafter, filed

CWP No. 3295/2010 before this Court. This writ petition was

decided on 02.07.2010, whereby, the respondents were directed to

conduct a fresh inquiry regarding petitioner's income at the relevant

point of time after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

concerned parties.

2(iii) During second round of litigation, the Additional

District Magistrate, Kangra, directed the Tehsildar Fatehpur to

re-inquire into the veracity of income certificates of the petitioner

and respondent No.5 as on the relevant date. In compliance thereto,

the Tehsildar Fatehpur inquired into the matter and submitted his

report on 26.02.2011. He reported that the income of petitioner's

family at the relevant point of time was Rs.34,000/- per annum,

whereas, she was selected as Anganwari Worker on the basis of an

income certificate reflecting her family's income from all sources to

be not exceeding Rs.8000/- per annum, which was outer limit

prescribed under the policy. The Tehsildar, therefore, reported

that certificate of income issued in favour of petitioner on

11.05.2007 reflecting her family's total income not exceeding

Rs.8000/- per annum, was wrong and to be treated as cancelled.

In his report, the Tehsildar also reported that income of the family

of respondent No.5 from all sources was Rs.19,000/- per annum,

.

whereas, income certificate issued in her favour on 15.05.2007

reflected her family's total income not exceeding as Rs.8000/- per

annum. This income certificate was also found to be incorrect. It

was also cancelled. Respondent No.5 has accepted this report.

    2(iv)         The petitioner challenged Tehsildar's report dated


                        r            to

26.02.2011 cancelling her income certificate dated 11.05.2007 by

filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jawali,

District Kangra. Her appeal was dismissed on 30.08.2011. The

report 26.02.2011 and order dated 30.08.2011, were challenged by

the petitioner before this Court in CWP No. 1233/2012. This writ

petition was dismissed in limini by Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court on 11.04.2012. The relevant part of the judgment is as

under:-

"9. The inquiry qua the genuineness of the certificate of income Ex.P-1 conducted by the 4th respondent

reveals that the same is false and on the face of such record of the case obtained by concealment of material information. The 4th respondent had verified from the revenue record that her husband Shri Mango Ram is joint owner-in-possession of the land measuring 1-86-25 hectares, which in bigha is around 24 bighas. Actual income from the land has been assessed with the assistance of criteria for assessment of income from each category of land fixed vide Annexure P-6 dated 14th July, 2004 and

the same as per the record produced before us comes to Rs.14,492/-. Besides, she herself disclosed during the course of inquiry before the 4th respondent that there were three male members in her family doing

.

the work of labourer, however, if available. The total

income of the family of the petitioner at the relevant time was thus assessed as Rs.34,000/- per annum

instead of Rs.8,000/-. It has also been verified from the Panchayat record that on 1.1.2004 viz the cut of date, the family of the petitioner was joint and the separation takes place on 7.1.2007 as per the copy of

Parivar Register produced before us by the 4th respondent.

10. Similarly, another aspirant Ms. Sujata Devi on

1.1.2004 was also a member of the joint family. Shri

Karam Chand, her father-in-law is owner in possession of land measuring 0-57-21 hectares, which in bigha is about 7 bighas. The annual income from landed property at the relevant time was

assessed as Rs.5403/-. Besides, it also came on record during the course of inquiry that there were

two male members of her family working as labourer no doubt if work available to them. The 4th

respondents has thus assessed the annual income of aforesaid Sujata as Rs.19,000/- from all sources.

Although the report submitted by the 4th respondent is not on record yet the record produced before us make it abundantly clear that the income certificate Annexure P-1 issued to the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the said respondent.

11. The order Annexure P-10 reveals that even the 3rd respondent has not committed any illegality and irregularity while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of the certificate Annexure P-1. We find no illegality and

infirmity with the impugned order Annexure P-6/A and Annexure P-10, hence the same need not to be interfered with in this writ petition."

Subsequent to the judgment, respondent No.3 vide

.

order dated 15.03.2013 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5

and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari

Worker.

2(v) In the aforesaid background, petitioner has preferred

instant writ petition, seeking quashing of the order dated

15.03.2013, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was

allowed and the petitioner's appointment as Anganwari Worker was

quashed and set-aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the record with utmost care.

4. The facts are not in dispute. As per the policy in vogue

at the time of initiating the selection process in question, the

candidates should have possessed annual family income not

exceeding Rs.8000/-. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 had

submitted certificates of income reflecting that their families' total

income did not exceed Rs.8000/- per annum. The petitioner's

appointment as Anganwari Worker on the strength of income

certificate dated 11.05.2007 was questioned by respondent No.5 on

the ground of petitioner's possessing higher income. The complaint

preferred by respondent No.5 was allowed by the Additional District

Magistrate, Kangra, on 22.11.2008. This order was upheld by the

Divisional Commissioner Kangra on 25.05.2010. In CWP No.

3295/2010, instituted by the petitioner, challenging the orders

dated 22.11.2008 and 25.05.2010, this Court remanded the

.

matter to the respondents for conducting fresh inquiry in respect of

petitioner's income certificate. After remand, fresh inquiry was

conducted, not only in respect of the income certificate of the

petitioner but also regarding the income certificate of respondent

No.5. It came during inquiry that both the parties had annual

r to income much exceeding the outer limit prescribed under the policy

applicable at the relevant point of time. The income certificates

issued in favour of the petitioner on which basis of which, she was

selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker, and that of

respondent No.5, were cancelled. Respondent No.5 has accepted

the order canceling her income certificate. Petitioner's challenge to

the cancellation of her income certificate was rejected by the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate Jawali, District Kangra, on 30.08.2011. The

report of Tehsildar dated 26.02.2011 canceling petitioner's income

certificate and the order passed thereupon by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate Jawali, District Kangra, have been upheld in CWP No.

1233/2012 decided on 11.04.2012. The matter has now attained

finality in respect of incomes and income certificate of the

petitioner and respondent No.5. Since the petitioner was selected as

Anganwari Worker on the strength of an income certificate, which

later on was found to be false and incorrect, therefore, respondent

No.3 was justified in passing impugned order dated 15.03.2013

cancelling petitioner's appointment as Anganwari Worker in

Anganwari Center Sunet, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. In

.

fact the order dated 15.03.2013 has only implemented the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

CWP No.1233/2012.

Consequently, there is no merit in the instant petition

and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed of. It shall be open to the respondents to

hold fresh selection process for the post of Anganwari Worker in

the concerned Anganwari Centre.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Judge October 25, 2021 R.Atal

.