NEELAM Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein and respondent No. 5 applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Ghorna, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. The guidelines apposite to and governing the selection and appointment of both the aforesaid to the post of Aganwadi Worker exist in a notification issued on 11th/12th April, 2007 as placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General. Since, the notification prescribing the relevant eligibility criteria came into force on 11th April, 2007, hence, when the process for recruitment and selection of the aspirants to the post of Aganwadi Worker was initiated in October, 2007, as such, the guidelines appended to the notification placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General apply with force for determining whether each of the aspirants fulfilled or did not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed in the germane Clause 4, sub clause (e), the relevant portion whereof reads as under: - -

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has invited the attention of this Court to a copy of the Parivar Register of respondent No. 5, which divulges the factum of hers having separated from the joint family in July, 2005. Obviously, when the separation of respondent No. 5 from her joint family occurred on a date after first January, 2004, as such, given the mandate of sub clause (e) of Clause 4 of the apt guidelines enjoining that for acquiring eligibility, the separation of an aspirant from the hitherto joint family ought to occur before 1st January, 2004, prima facie renders, hence, the respondent No. 5 to be falling outside the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. However, the reliance upon the prescription in the eligibility criteria enshrined in sub clause (e) of Clause 4 of the apt guidelines is only for determining the fact whether the severance and separation of the aspirant from the hitherto joint family begot an independent income to her so as to facilitate hers acquiring the apposite income criteria and for also determining whether respondent No. 5, even when she separated from her hitherto joint family, after January, 2004 then, hence, besides the income derived by her as an independent unit or as a separate unit, the income, if any, derived by the joint family was or was not pooled into it, for hence, rendering her eligible or ineligible, inasmuch hers fulfilling or not fulfilling the income criteria. Therefore, given the absence of revelation by the authority concerned qua the fact whether the authority concerned had while computing the income of the separated or individual family of the respondent No. 5 after the cut off date had reckoned it, by pooling into it or not, also the income of the joint family of which she was a part beyond first January, 2004. Its absence de -facilitates this Court to render an apt conclusion whether she dehors the fact of hers having separated from the joint family after first January, 2004, she had besides, her income as an individual unit, any income from the joint family which remained omitted to be pooled into it for determining whether, hence, she fell within or beyond the eligibility criteria. Consequently, it is deemed fit and appropriate that both the orders Annexure P -3 and Annexure P -4, impugned before this Court necessitate, hence, theirs being set aside while theirs having remained oblivious to the aforesaid factum.