Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between vs State Of H. P on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
.
CHIEF JUTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEALS NO. 16 & 17 OF 2017
1) LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 16 of 2017
Between:-
SMT. RANO DEVI
W/O SH. DES RAJ,
R/O VILLAGE LOWER BALAH,
POST OFFICE DHALARA,
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. NAVLESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H. P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,
SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,
H.P. SHIMLA-9
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
MANDI, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDI, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT OFFICER, DHARAMPUR,
DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2022 20:11:27 :::CIS
2
6. AARTI DEVI
W/O SH. PRITAM SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE LOWER BALH,
P.O. DHALARA, SUB-TEHSIL SANDHOLE,
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTT. MANDI. H.P.
.
........RESPONDENTS
(1. MS. RITTA GOSWAMI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5.
2. MS. AMBIKA KOTWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT NO.6)
2) LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 17 of 2017
Between:-
SMT. RANO DEVI
W/O SH. DES RAJ,
R/O VILLAGE LOWER BALAH,
POST OFFICE DHALARA,
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. NAVLESH VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H. P.
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.,
SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT,
H.P. SHIMLA-9
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
MANDI, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDI, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (C)
SARKAGHAT, CHAIRMAN
::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2022 20:11:27 :::CIS
3
SELECTION COMMITTEE,
SARKAGHAT, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT OFFICER, DHARAMPUR,
DISTT. MANDI, H.P.
.
7. SMT. RAJNI DEVI
W/O SH. BALBANT SINGH,
R/O VILLAGE LOWER BALAH,
P.O. DHALARA, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,
DISTT. MANDI. H.P.
........RESPONDENTS
(1. MS. RITTA GOSWAMI, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5.
2. MR ADARSH K. VASHISHTA, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT NO.7.)
________________________________________________________________
These appeals coming on for admission this day,
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, passed the following:
JUDGMENT
These two companion appeals arising out of the
same order are being decided vide this common judgment.
2. The facts may be briefly noticed: -
2(i) Pursuant to a selection process, one Smt. Rajni Devi
(Respondent No.7 in LPA No.17 of 2017) was selected against the
post of Anganwari Worker. She joined as such on 18.08.2007.
2(ii) Smt. Rano Devi (Appellant in both the appeals)
challenged the selection and appointment of Smt. Rajni Devi in
accordance with the provisions of Anganwari Policy. Her appeal
was primarily on the ground that Smt. Rajni Devi did not satisfy
the eligibility criteria laid down in the policy for the post in
question, inasmuch as her family had not legally separated as a
separate family as per the procedure laid down in the H.P.
Panchayati Raj Act and Rules by the cutoff date. The appeal was
dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, on 02.06.2008.
.
Further appeal preferred by Smt. Rano Devi was allowed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on 04.03.2009. The Divisional
Commissioner held that Smt. Rajni Devi's family had separated
after the cutoff date and, therefore, status of her family was to be
considered that of a joint family. Finding income of Rajni Devi's
joint family to be above the prescribed limit, she was held not
eligible for the post. Her appointment was accordingly set-aside.
The concerned Child Development Project Officer was further
directed to give appointment to the appellant Smt. Rano Devi,
being "next in merit".
2(iii) Against the order dated 04.03.2009, passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, two civil writ petitions were filed in this
Court. The first petition i.e. CWP No.797 of 2009 was instituted
by the originally selected candidate Smt. Rajni Devi, whereas, the
second petition i.e. CWP No.6749 of 2013 was preferred by Smt.
Aarti Devi (respondent No.6 in LPA No.16 of 2017)
Contention of Smt. Aarti Devi was that after setting-
aside the selection and appointment of Smt. Rajni Devi, she (Aarti
Devi) was required to be appointed to the post being second in the
order of merit after Smt. Rajni Devi. Whereas, contention of Smt.
Rajni Devi was that she satisfied the eligibility criteria and that
her appointment was wrongly set-aside by the Divisional
Commissioner.
2(iv). Learned Single Judge vide common judgment dated
.
13.05.2016, held that Smt. Rajni Devi did not meet the eligibility
criteria for appointment as Anganwari Worker. The order passed
by the Divisional Commissioner to the extent it set-aside the
selection and appointment of Smt. Rajni Devi, was upheld. CWP
No.797 of 2009 instituted by Smt. Rajni Devi was dismissed.
The dismissal of her writ petition vide judgment dated
13.05.2016 has been accepted by Smt. Rajni Devi. The order has
attained finality qua Smt. Rajni Devi.
While dismissing the writ petition preferred by Smt.
Rajni Devi, learned Single Judge found force in the contention
advanced by Smt. Aarti Devi (Petitioner in CWP No.6749 of 2013
and respondent No.6 in LPA No.16 of 2017). Learned Single
Judge held that Smt. Aarti Devi was next in the merit list after
Smt. Rajni Devi. Therefore, once selection and appointment of
Smt. Rajni Devi, figuring at Sr. No.1 in the merit list, was set
aside, the appointment had to be offered to the candidate, who
was next in the merit list. For these factual reasons, CWP
No.6749 of 2013, filed by Smt. Aarti Devi, was allowed. The order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner to the extent it directed
offering of appointment to the Rano Devi (appellant) on the post in
question, was quashed and set-aside. The respondents-
authorities were directed to offer appointment to Smt. Aarti Devi
as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Dhalara, Tehsil
Sarkaghat, District Mandi.
.
Aggrieved against allowing of CWP No.6749 of 2013
vide judgment dated 13.05.2016 and directions issued therein to
the official respondents for offering appointment to Smt. Aarti
Devi, instant appeals have been preferred by Smt. Rano Devi.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel
to for the Rano Devi (appellant)
contended that Smt. Aarti Devi did not fulfill the eligibility criteria
for appointment as Anganwari Worker. That her family had
legally separated as a separate family much after the cutoff date
and that income of Aarti Devi's joint family was above the
prescribed limit. The grievance projected by learned counsel for
the appellant Smt. Rano Devi is that it was she (Rano Devi) who
deserves to be appointed even though she figures at Sr. No.3 in
the merit list as Smt. Aarti Devi, figuring at Sr. No.2 in the order
of merit, was ineligible for the post in question. Learned counsel
for Smt. Aarti Devi refuted these contentions on merits.
4. Indisputably, Smt. Aarti Devi was not a party to the
proceedings either before the Deputy Commissioner or the
Divisional Commissioner. She was appointed against the post of
Anganwari Worker pursuant to the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge on 13.05.2016. She is stated to be serving
as on date. It is also not in dispute that Smt. Aarti Devi was
second in the order of merit after Smt. Rajni Devi. The order
passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner on 04.03.2009,
.
directing the concerned Child Development Project Officer to offer
appointment to Smt. Rano Devi (appellant) being "next in merit",
was factually incorrect. The person next in merit after Smt. Rajni
Devi was Smt. Aarti Devi and not Rano Devi. The eligibility of
Smt. Aarti Devi for the post in question was not examined by the
Divisional Commissioner.
As already observed, Smt. Aarti Devi
was not a party to the proceedings before the Divisional
Commissioner.
Under these circumstances, we dispose of both these
appeals as under :-
4(i) The matter is remanded to the Divisional
Commissioner, Mandi Division, for fresh decision w.r.t. eligibility
of Aarti Devi for the post in question.
4(ii) Smt. Aarti Devi w/o Sh. Pritam Singh, resident of
Village Lower Balh, P.O. Dhalara, sub-Tehsil Sandhole, Tehsil
Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., shall stand impleaded as
respondent No.3 in Misc. Appeal No.578 of 2008. Smt. Rano
Devi (appellant herein) shall be allowed to take additional
pleadings with respect to eligibility of Smt. Aarti Devi for the post
in question. Smt. Aarti Devi shall be accordingly given adequate
opportunity to meet the issues raised by Smt. Rano Devi. Parties
shall complete the pleadings expeditiously.
4(iii) The matter shall be heard and finally decided by the
Divisional Commissioner as expeditiously as possible, but not
.
later than six months from the date of first listing of the matter.
The parties through their learned counsel are directed appear
before the Divisional Commissioner on 07.03.2022.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
r to (Mohammad Rafiq)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge
February 22, 2022
(R.Atal)
