SANGEETA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant case is yet another glaring example where an authority vested with power to adjudicate, has not at all cared to even go through the records of the case and has thereby reached at a conclusion which is not only illegal but contrary to the record.

(2.) The petitioner aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 made on 29.9.2012 as an Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Khanwara, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., drafted an appeal on 03.10.2012 and thereafter despatched the same by post to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra on 04.10.2012. Admittedly, the same was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner well within the prescribed period of limitation of 15 days as it bears an endorsement dated 08.10.2012 and this fact has not yet been disputed by any of the respondents.

(3.) However, what appears thereafter is that the appeal was marked by the Superintendent of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra to the Additional District Magistrate and thereafter sent by post. Even though, the office of the Additional District Magistrate is stated to be in the same building. This complaint reached the office of the Additional District Magistrate on 26.10.2012 leading to the passing of the order dated 23.01.2015 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed as having been filed beyond the limitation period of 15 days as is evident from the aforesaid order which reads as under: