HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 168 of 2009. Decided on: 29.4.2009. Neena Devi ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms.Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 4: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No.5: Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 23.12.2008, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Chahar. Her selection to this post was challenged by respondent No.5 Sita Devi. One of the main grounds of challenge was that the present petitioner was living in a joint family alongwith her father-in-law, who is an ex serviceman and getting pension and the income of the family of the petitioner is much more than the prescribed limit. The appeal filed by respondent No.5 was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, _________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - who came to the conclusion that the income of the family of the petitioner is much more than the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/- and is actually Rs.68,000/- per annum. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Hence the present writ petition. We have heard Ms.Kiran Lata Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5 as well as Mr.R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. The findings given by both the authorities that the income of the family of the petitioner is more than Rs.68,000/- is a pure finding of fact which normally cannot be interfered in a writ petition. It has been strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner’s husband had separated from his father as far back as in 2001 and in this regard, a reference has been made to Annexure P-6/A, which is a copy of the Pariwar Register bearing one noting of the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat that the applicant had separated from his family prior to 2001-02. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that this certificate has wrongly been issued. No contemporaneous material has been placed on record to prove that the husband of the petitioner had separated from his father prior to 1.1.2004, which is the cut off date as per the Scheme. It is pertinent to mention that both the Pariwar Register and the copy of the ration card relied upon by the petitioner were issued in the year 2008. The petitioner has not annexed any document dated prior to 1.1.2004 wherein the husband of the petitioner is shown to have been residing separately. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by both the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tehsildar, who has found that the income of the family of the petitioner is about Rs.68,000/-, has also reported that the income of the family of respondent No.5 is Rs.17,000/- and, therefore, the order of the Divisional - 3 - Commissioner directing that respondent No.5 be appointed is also not correct. In our considered view, the learned Divisional Commissioner erred in relying upon the report of the Tehsildar only in part. In the said report, the Tehsildar had certified the income of both the sides. When the income of the respondent No.5 is also certified to be more than the prescribed limit, her appointment could not have been ordered and the only course open was to order that fresh interviews be held. Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5, has urged that his client never had the opportunity to challenge the report of the Tehsildar since she was not the aggrieved party before any authority. We make it clear that respondent No.5 shall be at liberty to challenge the report of the Tehsildar by making an appropriate representation to the Deputy Commissioner who shall decide the same on merits. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the writ petition and hold that though the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Anganwari Worker, the order of the Divisional Commissioner directing that the appointment be offered to respondent No.5 is also illegal. We, therefore, direct that fresh interviews be held in accordance with law. Till fresh selection is made, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the interest of the children. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), April 29, 2009. Judge. (TILAK)