IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 836 of 2008. Reserved on:26.12.2008. Decided on: 08.01.2009. _______________________________________________________ Kanchan Kumari … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 6: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner appeared for interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker on 8.8.2007. She was offered appointment as an Anganwadi Worker on 16.8.2007. She joined her duties on 16.8.2007. The respondent No.7 filed an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi on 19.8.2007. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi accepted the appeal on 7.11.2007. She preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Mandi. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dismissed the appeal on 19.5.2008. During the course of hearing the income of the petitioner and respondent No.7 prima facie appeared to be more than the prescribed income of Rs. 12,000/-. Consequently, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi was directed to hold an inquiry to ascertain the income of the petitioner as well as respondent No.7. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi was also directed to see the veracity of Annexure R-7/F. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi conducted the inquiry. Copy of the inquiry report was placed on record of the case. It is evident from the contents of the inquiry report that income of the petitioner as well as respondent No.7 is below Rs. 12,000/-. Consequently, the decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi dated 7.11.2007 and of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dated 19.5.2008 are liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi while holding an inquiry has gone through the documents and recorded the statements of all the concerned persons. An inquiry has been conducted by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi in an impartial manner. The findings recorded by him are liable to be accepted. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi has also conclusively found that Annexure R-7/F was tampered with. Accordingly, respondent No.7 was not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. It is not expected from the candidate to annex and produce before the Selection 3 Committee the documents which on the face of it are tampered with. The learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi has recorded the following findings with regard to tampering in Annexure R-7/F, which reads thus: “So far as the tampering in the copy of pariwar register is concerned, it was found that as per the original pariwar register of the respondent No.7, her family has been separated from her father in law in the year 2006 and not in the year 2003 as mentioned in the tampered copy of pariwar register of respondent No.7. Both the Panchayat Secretary who issue the copy of pariwar register as well as respondent No.7 denied any involvement in tampering the record and it is not possible to say that who has done the same as per the evidence is available, but since the entry of the original pariwar register makes it crystal clear that family of the respondent No.7 has been living separately as family unit since the year 2006 and the same is corroborated by the resolution by the Gram Sabha Siyun No. 9 dated 02-04-06.” Accordingly, in view of the analysis and observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker and her appointment made on 16.8.2007 is in accordance with law. Respondent No.7 was not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker since, admittedly, she has filed tampered document Annexure R-7/F. The respondent-State is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner forthwith. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 08, 2009. (cr) 4