IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.126 of 2009 Reserved on: 7.3.2011 Date of decision: 9.3.2011 __________________________________________________ Anjana Kumari …. Petitioner Versus Manorma Devi & ors. ` ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.Advocate General for +respondents No.2 to 4- State. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi whereby he accepted the appeal of respondent No.1 Smt.Manorma Devi and set aside the appointment of the petitioner Anjana Kumari as Anganwari worker. 2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Karnala under ICDS Block, Chachiot at Gohar was fell vacant and applications were invited for appointment to the said post. The petitioner Anjana Kumari was selected by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, Manorma Devi, respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi wherein the main challenge was that Manorma Devi should have been given more marks and that the Selection Committee was biased in favour of the present petitioner. The only argument raised was that the Selection Committee had not awarded the marks properly. This appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. Thereafter, Manorma Devi filed a second appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and in this appeal, a fresh ground was taken that she (Manorma Devi) should have been awarded additional two marks since she had not only passed Nursery & Infant Teachers Training Diploma but had also worked as a Nursery teacher 3 in a public school duly affiliated with H.P Board of School Education. Her grievance was that no marks were given to her for experience. A certificate was appended with this appeal and on the basis of this certificate, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi held that additional two marks should be given to the petitioner for experience and directed that fresh interviews be conducted. This order is now under challenge before me. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sh.J.L.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands since she has filed the petition without disclosing the fact that she had filed a review petition before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. It is true that the petitioner has not stated this fact which she should have stated but here we are dealing with persons belonging to poor families who are not highly educated and would depend on the counsel to draft their petitions. The petitioner was not going to gain anything by not disclosing the fact of having 4 filed a review petition and, therefore, this objection of Sh.Bhardwaj is rejected. I have gone through the original record and find that the certificate attached by the respondent No.1 with the second appeal was not a true copy of the certificate produced by Manorma Devi when the interviews were held. The experience certificate given by the petitioner at the time of interview only showed that she had served as a teacher from 1.10.2001 to 30.11.204 in OISES Public School, Jachh. The requirement of the Anganwari Policy is that the teaching experience should be as a nursery school teacher. There was no certificate before the interviewing authority that Manorma Devi had any experience as nursery school teacher. In fact, from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, it appears that this was not the ground taken before the Deputy Commissioner at the first instance. Be that as it may the fact is that when the interviews were held, there was no certificate which showed that Manorma Devi had experience as nursery teacher. 5 Sh.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mrs.Seema Kumari Sharma Vs. State of H.P & anr. AIR 1997 SC 1693 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “When we directed the appellant to produce the record, she made the certificate a part of the record. Unfortunately, it does not bear the date of issue but we find that she has been given serial number of the IRDP family. In view of the fact that serial numbers are ascribed to all the candidates in the order, we are of the view that her failure to furnish the certificate along with the application does not disentitle her to claim the status for consideration of award of 10 marks. Pursuant to the interim direction granted by this Court, the appellant has already appeared for the examinations conducted but her result has not been announced.” The Apex Court in this judgment has not laid down any hard and fast preposition of law. In the case before the Apex Court, there were no private competing parties. Here the petitioner has been selected and is working against the post of Anganwari Worker and her rights will be directly affected if such document is relied upon. It was the duty of Manorma Devi, respondent No.1 to have placed the proper documents before the 6 Selection Committee at the time of selection and if she failed to produce such documents at that stage, she cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae at a later stage. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the order of the Divisional Commissioner is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue function as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Karnala under ICDS Block, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi. No order as to costs. March 9, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge