JAYOTSNA SAKLANI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by the Appellate Authority vide per para 12 of the Guidelines for the appointment of Anganwari Worker/ Helper under the ICDS Scheme/programme, in an appeal filed under Clause-12 thereof, by Smt. Kalpana Devi (respondent No.7), against the appointment of present petitioner as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Baga, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P., decided by learned Appellate Authority on 30.03.2017, vide which, learned Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal, set aside the appointment of petitioner as Anganwari Worker in the above mentioned Anganwari Centre and has directed Child Development Project Officer to appoint a candidate who is 3rd in the merit as per the Waiting List, against the post in issue, after holding that petitioner as also the candidate who was at number are in the Waiting List, were ineligible for appointment to the post in issue.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. Record demonstrates that after filing of the appeal against the appointment of the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered into the veracity of the Income Certificate submitted by the candidates concerned and outcome of the enquiry, which was so conducted by Tehsildar concerned, revealed that the Income Certificate which was filed by the petitioner, was an incorrect Income Certificate, in which she had concealed the actual income of the family. It is also borne out from the impugned order that report of Tehsildar, Gohar, revealed after re-verification of the income of the parties that income of present petitioner was Rs. 37,000/- per annum, which was much beyond the criteria i.e. Rs.20,000/- per annum and her income Certificate No.0611TE/ 2230/2014 dated 01.12.2015, produced at the time of interview for the post of Anganwari Worker, stood cancelled vide order No.TDR-Reader/7576-78, dated 24th December, 2016 and as a result thereof, the petitioner had become ineligible to be selected for the post in issue.

(3.) During the course of arguments, these factual averments, as are contained in order passed by the Appellate Authority, have not been disputed. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not aware of the cancellation of her Income Certificate and she came to know about said fact only during the pendency of the appeal, but fact of the matter still remains that it is not in dispute that the Income Certificate, on the basis of which, petitioner was engaged as an Anganwari Worker, has been cancelled by the Authority concerned.