SAVITARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Savitari Devi has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2.4.2010, Annexure P -1, passed by the learned ADM, Mandi, vide which he had accepted the appeal filed by the private respondent Vijay Raj Laxmi and set aside the selection of the petitioner to the post of Anganwari worker in Hansal Behna, P.O. Jamni, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed the reply.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

(3.) AN appeal was preferred by the private respondent against the above mentioned order Annexure P -2, and the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dismissed the appeal filed by the private respondent and it was held that fresh interviews be held to the post, if there is no candidate next in merit. It was also observed till the appointment of new incumbent, private respondent Vijay Raj Laxmi, who was selected by the Selection Committee, shall continue the work as such. Thereafter, the petitioner, Savitri Devi was selected as Anganwari worker. The said order was challenged by the private respondent Vijay Raj Laxmi and the learned Additional District Magistrate vide order dated 2.4.2010 set -aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker. Being aggrieved, the said order has been challenged by the petitioner, since there is no provision in the new Rules for an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. It is clear that in passing the orders, the learned ADM had not relied upon the certificate of income of the petitioner as Rs. 11,200/ - produced by her and also included a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - as salary of the petitioner from the income which she earned as Anganwari worker and it was held that the total income of the petitioner comes to Rs. 29,200/ -. A reference was also made to the income of husband of the petitioner by running fruit and vegetables shop for the last 14 -15 years. In case, the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, in favour of the petitioner that she was earning having an income of Rs. 11,200/ - was not relied upon, the steps should have been taken for cancellation of the said certificate before passing the impugned order until and unless the certificate of income produced by the petitioner was cancelled. The appointment could not have been set -aside by the learned ADM, Mandi.