Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1212 of 2009. Judgment reserved on: 15.7.2009. Dated of Decision July 29th, 2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bimla Devi ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General & Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Surinder Singh, J: By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, accepting the appeal of respondent No.4, thereby reversing the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, in case No.J- 49/07, dated 15.1.2009. Heard and gone through the record. The factual matrix depicts that the petitioner and other candidates including respondent No.4 appeared in the - 2 - interview for the selection of the Anganwari Worker, but Respondent No.4 got selected and was appointed. The selection of respondent No.4 was challenged by the petitioners, in appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur on the grounds that she was living in a joint family, as per the record, it stood on 1.1.2004 and also that her income exceeded Rs.12,000/- per annum. The appeal of the petitioner herein was allowed setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin and the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Jhandutta, for filling up the post, out of the remaining candidates, who qualified the eligibility criteria. Pursuant to aforesaid orders, the petitioner was appointed on the condition that in case respondent No.4 would file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and get a stay, in that event her appointment would be subject to the final decision, taken in appeal. The respondent No.4 challenged the aforesaid orders before the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal. It was allowed and the orders of Additional District Magistrate were set-aside while relying upon the entry made in Parivar register Part-one whereby the family of Inder Singh was shown separate since December, 2003. Thus, the appointment of respondent No.4 made by the Selection Committee was upheld, which is now the subject matter of - 3 - dispute in this petition, on the same grounds as were initially raised before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Scheme/ Guidelines for the engagement of the Anganwari Workers/ Helpers on honorary basis under ICDS scheme run by ‘Social Justice & Empowerment Department’, as amended from time to time inter-alia provides eligibility criteria that only those female belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per the procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before Ist January 2004, could apply and the annual income of the candidate should not exceed Rs.12000/- per annum and no one is in the Government/ Semi Government employment/ service, from the candidates family. The respondent No.4 produced a copy of affidavit Annexure P6 = Annexure R4/5 dated 5.3.2005 executed by her husband Inder Singh showing that he along with his family was residing separate from his father for the last two years i.e. w.e.f. 2003 and made a request to enter this fact in the Parivar register and also to issue a separate ration card. On the same day permission was granted by the SDO (Civil) Ghumarwin and the orders were sent to B.D.O. and the Secretary Panchayat concerned to do the needful. As a follow up action, the family of Inder Singh, which includes his wife (respondent No.4) and a son Ghaurav were shown a separate family in the Pariwar register of Gram Panchayat - 4 - Paploa but a note was appended to it that the said family was living separately w.e.f. December, 2003. Later this mistake was realized and rectified by the Secretary Panchayat. He issued the certificate dated 28.7.2007 saying that the mistake was inadvertent and earlier certificate issued by him be treated cancelled. Surprisingly, the Divisional Commissioner relied upon the note appended to the entry in the Parivar register that the family of Inder Singh was separate w.e.f. December, 2003 without caring for, that such orders were passed by the competent authority on 5.3.2005 which is the date on which it could be treated a separate family not whatever was stated in the affidavit by the deponent. We find that the orders of Divisional Commissioner are indefensible as the family of Inder Singh cannot be deemed to be a legally separated family before Ist January, 2004. Therefore, the family of Inder Singh is deemed to have been living with his father Bishan Dass, who was working as a ‘Lineman’ in the HPSEB, having an income exceeding Rs.12000/- P.A. Therefore, the orders of Divisional Commissioner reversing the orders of Additional District Magistrate, were wrong and illegal. Insofar as the appointment of petitioner in place of respondent No.4 is concerned, her husband Ishwar Dass was holding a Life Insurance Policy (Annexure R4/1), for which he has been paying yearly premium of Rs.6664/- and - 5 - has also 1/3rd share in agricultural land measuring 15-13 bighas, situated in Mauja Paploa (Annexure R-4/2). This fact stands admitted by the petitioner in the rejoinder. Ishwar Dass’s mother Thakuri Devi is also getting old age pension @ Rs.330/- per month. All are living in a joint family. Ishwar Dass has a shop at Naina Devi and is also running a Dhaba though this fact is denied. Thus it prima-facie indicates the income of the petitioner’s husband is also exceeding Rs.12000/- P.A. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, we quash and set- aside the orders dated 5.3.2009, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and in the circumstances, we are also unable to issue the mandamus for continuing the petitioner as Anganwari Worker of A.C. Paploa. Therefore, we direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to start the fresh process for the appointment of Anganwari Worker, in AC Paploa forthwith in accordance with the procedure and guidelines issued in this behalf from time to time and complete the process within two months from today, however till then petitioner shall continue to work against the said post, so that the early childhood services to children, expectants and nursing mothers of the said centre does not suffer. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (Surinder Singh) Judge July 29th,2009 (pds) - 6 -