IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 859 of 2008. Reserved on: 31.10.2008. Decided on: 6.11.2008. _______________________________________________________ Smt. Reeta Mehta … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The present petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla and the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre at Kurnoo in Gram Panchayat Narain, Tehsil Rampur Bushehar. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No.5 before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Shimla vide order dated 22.11.2007 came to the conclusion that income of the family of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12000/- per annum. He held the petitioner not eligible for the post of Anganwari Worker as per the criteria laid down in the Scheme. The Selection Committee was directed to review its recommendations accordingly. The petitioner preferred an 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 12.12.2007 against the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner dated 22.11.2007. The learned Divisional Commissioner decided the appeal on 10.4.2008. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner and the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 22.11.2007 and 10.4.2008 respectively are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the petitioner has not been heard at the time of decision by the learned Deputy Commissioner. According to him, order dated 22.11.2007 is a nullity. He also refuted the findings recorded by the learned Divisional Commissioner in his order dated 10.4.2008 pertaining to the income of the petitioner’s family. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate have supported the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner and the learned Divisional Commissioner. I have heard the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. It is not disputed by the parties that the petitioner pursuant to the interviews dated 13.8.2007 was appointed as Anganwari Worker. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No. 5. It is not disputed by the parties that the income of the candidate’s family shall not exceed more than Rs. 12000/- per annum as per the Scheme. The learned Deputy Commissioner ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing order dated 22.11.2007. However, the learned Divisional Commissioner for ascertaining the income of the parties sought the report from the S.D.O. (Civil), Rampur. The S.D.O. 3 (Civil), Rampur in his report dated 16.4.2008 had held that the income of the petitioner’s family was more than Rs. 65,000/- per annum. The income of the family of respondent No.5 was also assessed more than Rs. 30,000 per annum. Copy of the report has been filed and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-8. The statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were recorded by the S.D.O. (Civil), Rampur. It is only on the basis of the statement of the petitioner that the S.D.O. (Civil) Rampur has come to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner’s family was more than Rs. 65,000/- per annum. The petitioner had been associated at the time of inquiry conducted by the S.D.O. (Civil), Rampur by recording her statement. In the present case, the only issue which was required to be decided by the authorities below was whether the income of the petitioner’s family has exceeded more than Rs. 12000/- or not. If the petitioner had not been associated with the inquiry or her statement was not recorded during the course of the inquiry by the S.D.O. (Civil) or not heard by the Divisional Commissioner, the matter could be remanded back to the authorities concerned. However, in the present case, there is compliance with principles of natural justice since the petitioner had been heard by the learned Divisional Commissioner and she had been associated during the course of inquiry to ascertain her income. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Shimla with the direction to him to afford reasonable opportunity to his client. The Court is of the opinion that it will not serve any practical purpose since after the inquiry through the S.D.O. (Civil) the income of the petitioner’s family has already been ascertained to be more than Rs. 4 65,000/- per annum. It will be useless formality to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, as prayed for. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. Dy. CIT and others, (2007) 2 SCC 181 have laid down that while applying the principles of natural justice, the Court must take into consideration the theory of “useless formality”. Their Lordships have held as under: “While applying the principles of natural justice, however, the Court must also bear in mind the theory of useless formality and the prejudice doctrine.” In the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner since she has been heard by the S.D.O. (Civil) Rampur and the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, as noticed hereinabove. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. November 6, 2008. (cr)