Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jukhala vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 10 October, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Sushil Kukreja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.27 of 2018
Between:-
NEELAM WIFE OF SHRI RAM
KRISHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
GASSAUD, POST OFFICE
JUKHALA, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT BILASPUR, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
....APPELLANT
(BY MR. AMIT SINGH CHANDEL,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY (SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT),
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
EMPOWERMENT, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-9.
3. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
OFFICER, SADAR, DISTRICT
BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
4. SMT. ARTI WIFE OF SHRI MANOJ
KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
GASSAUD, POST OFFICE
JUKHALA, TEHSIL SADAR,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 TO R-3
MR. TARA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE
FOR R-4)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Sabina, delivered the following:
r JUDGMENT
Appellant has filed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging
the order dated 18th December, 2012, passed by the learned Single
Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
income certificate of the appellant has been cancelled by the
competent authority vide order dated 5th July, 2013, without following
due process of law. Appellant was not issued any notice before
passing of the said order. Thus, the appellant has been condemned
without affording him an opportunity of being heard.
3. The appellant was appointed as Anganwari Worker in
pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2007. However, in
an appeal filed by respondent No.4, the appellate authority had set
aside the appointment of the appellant on the ground that she did not
belong to the feeder area. Petitioner, in fact, belongs to the feeder
area where she has been appointed as Anganwari Worker.
.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned
counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, have opposed the
appeal and have submitted that this Court while deciding CWP
No.1932 of 2012-D, had given a categoric finding that the income of
the appellant was more than `12,000/- per annum. Hence, she was
Post of
r to
not eligible for appointment as an Anganwari Worker.
5. Anganwari Worker
Gassoud-II, was advertised in the year 2007.
for Anganwari
Appellant has also
Centre,
applied for the said post, but she was not selected. Appeal filed by the
appellant challenging the fact that she had been wrongly ignored, was
allowed and the appointment of selected candidate Sanjeev Kumari
was set aside. However, appellant was also held ineligible to hold the
post of Anganwari Worker.
6. Appellant filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the
order passed by the appellate authority. CWP No.1932 of 2012-D was
disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18th December, 2012.
7. Operative part of the order dated 18th December, 2012
reads as under:
"8. It has been strenuously urged on behalf of
the respondents that even the petitioner is ineligible for
appointment and that the income of her family is also
more than `12,000/- per annum and in this behalf
certain documents have been placed on record
including material to show that the petitioner and
her husband are paying premium of more than ` 7,000/-
.
per year of LIC policies. The explanation given by the
petitioner is that this premium is being paid by her brother
and his affidavit has also been filed in this regard. No
explanation has been given as to what is the income of
her brother and how he can afford to pay premium of
`7,418/- annually for his sister and brother-in-law.
9. To us, it appears that both, the petitioner
as well as respondent No. 4, have income much more
than `12,000/- per annum. We, therefore, dispose of the
writ petition by quashing the appointment of respondent
No. 4-Sanjeev Kumari. However, keeping in view the fact
that the income of the family of the petitioner is
also more than `12,000/-, we direct that fresh selection
be made to fill up the post of Anganwari Worker at
Anganwari Center, Gassoud. The needful be done latest
by 31st March, 2013. Till then, respondent No. 4 can
continue to work."
8. Thus, this Court had given a finding, while deciding the writ
petition filed by the appellant, to the effect that the appellant was
ineligible for the post of Anganwari Worker as her income was more
than `12,000/- per annum. Consequently, the respondents were
directed to hold a fresh selection for the post of Anganwari Worker,
Anganwari Centre, Gassoud-II.
9. Learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant was
having more income than the minimum income prescribed as
eligibility for the post of Anganwari Worker. Consequently, the question
as to whether the appellant belongs to the feeding area of Gassoud-II
.
was rendered academic.
10. Since this Court has already given a finding that the
income of the appellant is more than `12,000/- per annum, the effect of
cancellation of subsequent income certificate loses its significance and
whether the said certificate has been cancelled by following due
process of law or not, is rendered merely academic.
11. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge
has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
12. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
(Sabina)
Judge
(Sushil Kukreja)
October 10, 2022(ps) Judge
