SUNITI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner under Annexure P -2 was appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre located at Satnala. She, however, belonged to village Sulakhar, which is a location other than the location of the Anganwari Centre. The respondent No. 4 challenged before the authority concerned the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Satnala. The Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on being seized of the appeal preferred before him by respondent No. 4 appellant therein assailing the appointment of the petitioner herein as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre, Satnala on the score of her not being resident of village Satnala, rather hers being resident of Sulakhar, as such, infraction of para 4(a) of the scheme/guidelines issued by the department for selection/appointment of Anganwari workers envisaging therein the indispensable criteria for eligiblizing the aspirants seeking appointment as Anganwari Workers in the Anganwari Centre concerned comprised in theirs belonging to the village where the Anganwari Centre is located or belonging to the feeding village of the Anganwari area, having emerged, consequently, the authority seized of the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 petitioner therein on a consideration of the material laid before it accepted the contention of respondent No. 4 herein and set -aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Satnala. The petitioner assailed the decision comprised in Annexure P -4 by way of instituting a writ petition before this Court. The petitioner herein relied upon Annexure P -3 to canvass before this Court that hence when it was divulged therein of both Sulakhar and Bhatada, the earlier being the village of the petitioner herein, being the feeding areas of Anganwari Centre Satnala, as such, the guidelines prescribed by the Government for eligiblizing or sanctifying the appointment of the Anganwari Worker stood not infracted. This Court while accepting the submission of the petitioner herein allowed the Civil Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2010 and directed the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, to in the light of annexure P -3 reconsider the case of the petitioner. While deciding the matter on remand, the learned Divisional Commissioner on a consideration of the entire material especially of letter No. 274 sent to the Director Social Justice and Empowerment, Shimla, and its divulging that in it the location of the proposed Anganwari Centre at Satnala is Satnala occurs at Sr. No. 147 and column No. 15, as also the feeding area covered under it is also Satnala, was, hence, obviously constrained to conclude in consonance thereto that the location of Anganwari Centre Satnala is at Satnala as also its feeding area is Satnala and not Sulakhar and Bhatada, as erroneously reflected in Annexure P -3. The impugned order comprised in Annexure P -6 unravels the factum of an incisive and circumspect consideration of the entire material by the authority which rendered it. The enunciation of the reasoning by the authority concerned who rendered Annexure P -6 whereby it falsified the reflection in Annexure P -3, on which the petitioner relies, has not been by cogent and demonstrable evidence portrayed to be either perverse or absurd, on the anvil of it being not anchored upon relevant material or it having excluded germane and apposite material. Consequently, when no evidence for portraying that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the officer who rendered Annexure P -6 are hence perverse or suffer from any illegality or impropriety, as such, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere with the impugned orders comprised in Annexure P -6. Consequently, when uncontrovertedly the petitioner belongs to village Sulakhar, which is not the feeding area of Anganwari Centre Satnala, hence, she was disabled by the eligibility criteria envisaged in the apposite guidelines extracted hereinafter as framed by the Government to claim appointment at Anganwari Centre Satnala: -