IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3605 of 2011 Date of Decision: 23rd May, 2011 Santosh Kumari Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate For the respondent: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) For the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Ghatt Kandi, amongst others petitioner Santosh Kumari and private respondent Reena Devi were interviewed. On the recommendation of the selection committee, Santosh Kumari was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 21.7.2007. This appointment was assailed by Reena Devi and in terms of order dated 22.9.2007, selection and appointment of Santosh Kumari was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilapur. On 9.1.2008, appeal filed by Santosh Kumari was dismissed by the Divisional Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Commissioner, Mandi, who further directed that appointment be given to Reena Devi. Santosh Kumari approached this Court by way of CWP No.243 of 2009, which stood decided in terms of judgment dated 17.6.2010 and the authorities were directed to decide the matter afresh in view of the direction issued by the Court. In terms of the impugned order dated 11.5.2011, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, has set aside appointment of petitioner Santosh Kumari for the reason that she was ineligible for being considered for the post in question as she did not meet the income criterion. She was found to be coming from an affluent background. Relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under:- “The appellant alleged that the respondent belong to a rich family as her husband is a driver and owns a Tata Sumo vehicle No. HP01-B-0133 and the respondent also belongs to another village. She prayed for cancellation of order dated 13.8.2007 of Child Development Project Officer. During the hearing the major dispute related to the income of the respondent family the matter was referred to the certificate issuing authority i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghumarwin who has also submitted his report. Today I have carefully gone through the case file and heard the arguments adduced by both the parties. The main dispute in this case relates to the income of the family of the respondent. The respondent Smt. Santosh Kumari had produced an income certificate dated 19.5.2007 showing her 3 annual income as Rs.7,000/- that certificate was issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin. That certificate was referred to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghumarwin for verification and the Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghumarwin vide his letter No. GMR-Peshi/2010-228, dated 2.5.2011 has submitted his decision dated 23.4.2011. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghumarwin has cancelled the above referred income certificate as he found that the income of the family of respondent Smt. Santosh Kumari was much higher than Rs.7,000/- at the relevant point of time. No other issue has been stressed. So, on the basis of the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghumarwin it is concluded that Smt. Santosh Kumari respondent was not eligible for selection as Anganwari worker so, her selection is set aside and the original appeal of Smt. Reena Devi is accepted. The Sub Divisional Officer (C) Ghumarwin as Chairman and Child Development project Officer Ghumarwin as member Secretary are directed to appoint the next available candidate in the original merit list and the file be consigned to the general record room after completing the codal formalities.” 2. Quite apparently, after a detailed inquiry conducted by the authorities below, income certificate issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, produced by the petitioner stood cancelled for the reason that at the relevant point of time petitioner/her family was having income more than the prescribed limit of Rs.7000/- per annum. 3. Parties were also heard and no grievance with regard to non-association of the petitioner 4 during the course of inquiry was raised by the petitioner before the authority below. The case was heard afresh. At some stage all litigation must come to an end. Rather than spending time in courts Anganwari Workers must focus on looking after the needs and affairs of the children in the schools, who in fact are future of the country. 4. We thus find no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. No ground for interference is made out. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Judge. (Justice Sanjay Karol) 23rd May, 2011 Judge. (C)