HANSA DEVI Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Undisputed facts as they emerge from the pleadings are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Gad at Seraj Janjehali, Mandi in August 2007, which appointment was assailed by the present petitioner by way of an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. Learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 09.06.2008 while allowing the appeal so filed by the present petitioner, set aside the appointment of the private respondent. The order so passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi was assailed by the private respondent further by way of an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, who vide order dated 111.2008, set aside the order so passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi dated 09.06.2008. The order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, dated 111.2008 stood assailed by way of a writ petition before this Court, i.e., CWP No. 786 of 2009. Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2010 by way of remand of the matter to the authority concerned to decide the veracity of the income certificate of the selected candidate.

(3.) On the directions so issued by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Mandi, an inquiry was conducted by respondent No. 3, inter alia, qua the income of the selected candidate. Vide inquiry report appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, respondent No. 3, i.e., Tehsildar, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, upheld the income certificate so issued in favour of the private respondent by holding that Smt. Hansa Devi, i.e., the present petitioner had failed to substantiate the allegation/objections raised by her in the petition. The findings so returned in the inquiry report were assailed before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Chachiot by the present petitioner. Sub-Divisional Collector, Chachiot vide order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) while upholding the findings so returned by respondent No. 3, dismissed the appeal so filed by the petitioner.