BIASA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Chhiachhi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. on 2.8.2007. The selection of the petitioner was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Additional District Magistrate, Solan in Appeal No. 95/08 of 2007. The Additional District Magistrate, Solan vide order dated 18.6.2009 set aside the appointment of the petitioner. The CDPO Nalagarh was directed to take further necessary action in the matter as per the guidelines of Scheme and instructions of the Government. According to the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, the income of the petitioner, as per the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, from all sources is Rs. 2,53,600/- per annum. Thus, the income of the petitioner was more than the income prescribed under the Scheme. The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.6.2009 before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, transferred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, on 21.12.2009. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, passed the impugned order, dated 21.1.2012, after getting report from the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar. According to the report furnished by the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, the income of the petitioner is Rs. 35,800/- per month. In view of this, the appeal of respondent No.4 was accepted and the appointment of the petitioner was quashed. The CDPO Nalagarh was directed to take necessary steps to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and appoint other eligible candidate for the post of Anganwari Worker. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.1.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan before this Court. This Court on 20.3.2012 impleaded the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar as respondent No.5. On 3.5.2012, he was directed to conduct an inquiry qua the dispute of the income of the petitioner during the period, preceding one year of her selection as Anganwari worker, in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also respondent No.4 and submit a report to this Court on his own affidavit. The Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar, i.e., respondent No.5 has filed a detailed affidavit at page No. 37 of the paper-book. According to him, the income of the petitioner from all sources was Rs. 2,46,600/-. The copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar was also furnished to the parties. However, the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar has also calculated the income of respondent No.4. According to him, the income of respondent No.4 was Rs. 40,000/- per annum, (Rs.3333/- per month from all sources, viz. Agriculture & cloth sewing).

(2.) MR. S.R. Chauhan, Advocate, has strenuously argued that the order dated 21.1.2012 and the report of the Naib Tehsildar Ramshahar are against the facts. According to him, the income of the petitioner is Rs. 9,000/- per annum as per Annexure P-4 and not Rs.2,46,600/- as verified by the Naib Tehsildar Ramshahar.

(3.) MR. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has argued that the Naib Tehsildar, Ramshahar was not directed by this Court to verify the income of his client, i.e., respondent No.4 and thus, the report cannot be taken into consideration qua his client.