Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jachh vs Anjana Kumari on 15 September, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 15th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 155 of 2011
Between :-
MANORMA DEVI, WIFE OF
SHRI ISHWAR DASS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE KARNALA, POST OFFICE
JACHH, TEHSIL CHACHIOT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...APPELLANT
(BY JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ANJANA KUMARI, WIFE OF
SHRI FARMESH KUMAR, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE KARNALA, POST OFFICE
JACHH, TEHSIL CHACHIOT, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY (SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, H.P.
3. CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:04:50 :::CIS
2
(SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
GOHAR, TEHSIL CHACHIOT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
OFFICER, GOHAR-CUM-MEMBER OF
.
SELECTION COMMITTEE, TEHSIL
CHACHIOT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR R-1)
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH
MR. RANJAN SHARMA, MR. VIKAS
RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL
AND MS. SEEMA SHARMA,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL
FOR R-2 TO 4)
____________________________________________________
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The appellant remained unsuccessful in the selection
process for appointment of anganwari worker in Anganwadi
Centre Karnala, P.O. Jachh, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. Her
appeal against selection of respondent No. 1 was dismissed by
the Deputy Commissioner Mandi on 30.05.2008. Her further
appeal was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi on
24.12.2008. Vide impugned judgment dated 09.03.2011, the
learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, thereby upholding the appointment of respondent
No.1.
2. Interviews for the post of anganwari worker in
.
Anganwari Centre Karnala under ICDS Block Chachiot at Gohar,
district Mandi were held on 23.07.2007. Respondent No. 1 was
selected and appointed as anganwari worker on 04.08.2007. The
appellant challenged this selection before the Deputy
Commissioner Mandi by filing an appeal. The ground for assailing
the appointment was that the appellant deserved to be granted
more marks than respondent No. 1 in lieu of her (appellant's)
securing more marks in the matriculation examination. The
appeal was dismissed on 30.05.2008. The appellant preferred
second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi
Division. The second appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by
the Divisional Commissioner on 24.12.2008. The Divisional
Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled for additional
two marks for experience which were wrongly not given to her.
The concerned authority was directed to hold fresh interviews of
the appellant and respondent No. 1 for the post.
Aggrieved against this order, the selected candidate
i.e. present respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before this Court.
In terms of interim order passed in the writ petition, respondent
No. 1 continued to serve as anganwari worker. The writ petition
was decided on 09.03.2011. The learned Single Judge held that
(i) the present appellant had not taken the ground of her
entitlement to additional marks on the strength of having acquired
.
teaching experience as a nursery school teacher in the appeal.
(ii) there was no certificate before the interviewing authority to the
effect that appellant had any experience as a nursery school
teacher. No certificate was produced by the appellant before the
selection committee to show that she had experience as a
nursery teacher. Therefore, the writ petition filed by respondent
No. 1 was allowed. The order of Divisional Commissioner was set
aside. Respondent No. 1 who was continuing as anganwari
worker in Anganwari Centre Karnala ever since her appointment
on 04.08.2007, was permitted to continue as such. The judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed in the
instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant was entitled for additional two marks in view of her
experience certificate on account of teaching nursery classes. In
support of such submission, learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon a certificate dated 08.12.2006 appended at Annexure
R-1/A of the writ file. Learned counsel submitted that as per this
certificate, the appellant had served as nursery teacher from
01.10.2001 to 30.11.2004. He further submitted that certificate
was supplied to the selection committee at the time of interview,
however, no marks on the basis of this certificate, which were
admissible to the appellant, were granted to her. Learned counsel
.
for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge.
4. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellant revolves around the experience certificate said to have
been produced by the appellant before the selection committee
at the time of her interview for the post of anganwari worker. The
case of the respondents is that such alleged certificate was never
submitted by the appellant during interview before the selection
committee. The certificate dated 08.12.2006 does not not reflect
the appellant having served as a teacher in a nursery school. The
certificate was issued on a letter head of OISIS Public School
Jachh with Regd. No. 789/2003. To a pointed query of the Court
that the above certificate does not reflect the experience of the
appellant as a nursery teacher, learned counsel for the appellant
pointed out another certificate appended as Annexure P-5 with
the writ file. This certificate is dated 21.05.2008. The alleged
certificate dated 21.05.2008 though shows the experience of the
appellant as a nursery teacher from 01.10.2001 to 30.04.2004,
however, the certificate is on the letter head of OASIS Public
School Jachh. Not only the contents of the two certificates are
different, but the two certificates referred to above are from two
different schools and pertain to same period. Under the
circumstances, manipulation of certificates cannot be ruled out.
.
No authenticity can be attached to such certificates. In any case,
the official respondents have denied receipt of the certificates at
the time of selection process. Even otherwise, there is no
contemporary record to show that the appellant had supplied the
certificates to the selection committee at the time of interview.
For all the aforesaid reasons, no fault can be found in
the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the
writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and upholding order dated
04.08.2007 appointing her as an anganwari worker. This appeal
is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed
alongwith pending applications, if any.
( Ravi Malimath )
Acting Chief Justice
15th September, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
