SUNITA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has a long-drawn chequered history. Interviews for the post of 'Anganwari Worker' at Anganwari Centre, Devthana by the Integrated Child Development Project Officer, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, were held during the year 2007, in which the petitioner came to be selected. However, her appointment was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur (first appellate authority) on the ground of higher family income, who set aside the selection of the petitioner vide order dated 10.06.2008. The petitioner assailed the order before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who vide his order dated 09.07.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing CWP No.2605/2009 and the same was decided by this Court on 17.05.2010 along with bunch of similar cases with the direction to the appellate authority to hear afresh all these matters in light of the directions/clarifications given by this Court.

(3.) In compliance to such directions, the issue of income of the petitioner was got verified from the Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil, Nohra, who vide report dated 15.01.2011 (Annexure P-5) reported that income of the family of the petitioner during the year 2007 was Rs. 11,000/- and, therefore, income certificate issued to her was correct. However, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, in his report dated 25.03.2009 (Annexure P-7) reported that the family of the petitioner had separated on 02.07.2006 (i.e. after 01.01.2004, the date prescribed in the guidelines). He further reported that the husband of the petitioner was employed in the Home guards and had received an amount of Rs.6,300/- as wages during 2006-07, therefore, the income of the petitioner should be taken to be Rs.16,300/- or more. On the basis of such report, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the selection of the petitioner vide his order dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure P-6). Even though, this order was again assailed before the Divisional Commissioner by the petitioner but the appeal so preferred came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure P-9), constraining the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.