CHAMELI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 (Smt. Maya Devi) filed an application before Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. for implementation of a judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3356 of 2010, pertaining to appointment of Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Segal, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Directions were issued by Deputy Commissioner to Naib Tehsildar, Nihri to pass orders qua Income Certificates of the concerned parties with regard to their respective family income on the date of issuance of the Income Certificate. In his report dtd. 2/12/2010, Naib Tehsildar, Nihri reported that Income Certificates issued in favour of the present petitioner as also respondents No.5 and 6 were correctly issued. This was assailed by respondent No.5 by way of appeal before respondent No.2, who accepted the appeal and set aside the report of Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, on the ground that the Inquiry Report was not issued in terms of decision dtd. 17/5/2010, passed by this Court in CWP No.1096 of 2010. Further directions were issued to Naib Tehsildar, Nihri to reassess the income of the parties strictly in terms of the averments made in CWP No.1096 of 2010. Naib Tehsildar, Nihri again submitted his report and now he held that Income Certificates of all the three parties were not based on the factual position. The income of the family of the petitioner was assessed as Rs.13,700.00 per annum and that of Smt. Daya Devi (respondent No.5) was also assessed as Rs.13,700.00 per annum. The income of family of Smt. Leela Devi (respondent No.6) was assessed as Rs.6,500.00 per annum. According to the petitioner, Naib Tehsildar was not competent to do so and he had no power or jurisdiction to issue Income Certificate. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against the Inquiry Report dtd. 26/9/2011 before respondent No.2, who dismissed the appeal in terms of order dtd. 15/7/2013. According to the petitioner, the income of respondent No.6 (Smt. Leela Devi) has been wrongly assessed by respondent No.4 as the income of her motherinlaw was not taken into account, who was ownerinpossession of land measuring more than six bighas in SubTehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. Further, as per the petitioner, her family income was wrongly assessed by respondent No.4 as her family was not possessing 1955 bighas of land. Accordingly, as per the petitioner, as the family income of respondents No.5 and 6 was more than the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000.00, none of them were eligible to be considered for appointment as Anganwari Worker and therefore, the petition stood filed, praying for the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) The petition has been resisted by respondent No.6, who has taken the stand that there was no infirmity with regard to the family income of said respondent as assessed by the authority concerned and as the family income of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 was more than the prescribed limit, therefore, she was the only eligible person for being appointed against the post in issue. It was further her case that time and again appeals were preferred by the petitioner against the Income Certificate issued by the authority concerned in favour of respondent No.6 and the family income was reassessed by the authorities and in this process of reassessment, again the family income of the replying respondent was found to be below the prescribed limit, whereas that of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 was found to be much above that.