SAVITA Vs. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Scheme for engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers under ICDS, whereby her appointmnet as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad was set aside, approached this Court by way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking therein following reliefs:-

(2.) Briefly the facts, as emerged from record, are that petitioner, persuant to interview conducted by respondents, was appointed as Anganwari Worker in the month of August 2007 at Anganwari Centre Bhurlahad, District Kangra H.P. vide Annexure P-1. Respondent No.5, being aggrieved with appointment of petitioner, preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority under the Scheme for engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers, which came to be registered as appeal No. 110/Kangra. However, Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of respondent No.5 on the ground that petitioner is not resident of survey area of Anganwari Centre, Bhurlahad and accordingly, quashed the selection of petitioner. Being dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by Appellate Authority, petitioner preferred second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala bearing No. 112 of 2009. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 21.6.2010, dismissed the appeal having been preferred by petitioner and directed the authorities concerned to conduct fresh interview to select an eligible candidate as Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre in question strictly in accordance with Scheme/Guidelines issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department.

(3.) It further emerge from the record that petitioner being dissatisfied with rejection of her appeal by Divisional Commissioner preferred a civil writ petition bearing No. 4051 of 2010 before this Court seeking quashment of orders dated 21.6.2010 and 24.2.2009 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala as well as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala respectively. However, the fact remains that aforesaid petition, having been preferred by petitioner, was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.7.2010, strictly in terms of its earlier judgment rendered in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 on 17.5.2010. Perusal of judgment dated 17.5.2010, passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010, clearly suggests that Court, while delivering judgment considered various issues and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the case afresh, in the light of clarification/directions/observations made in judgment. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras of aforesaid judgment, which directly deal with proposition/question involved in present case.