Allowed

Kesari Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022LPA/62/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Letters Patent Appeal, setting aside a Single Judge's order that had dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of orders cancelling the appellant's Anganwari Worker appointment. The Court held the lower orders were based on a misreading of documents regarding the advertisement date.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; writ petition allowed; orders dated 29.09.2007 and 22.07.2008 quashed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Kesari Devi Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No. 62 of 2016

¶3

Decided on : 15.12.2022

¶4

Kesari Devi …Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?^{1 No.}

¶11

For the appellant: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate.

¶12

For the respondents: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans and Mr. Vinod Thakur, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

¶13

Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

¶14

Appellant-Kesari Devi has filed the present

¶15

Letters Patent Appeal, under Section 10 of the Delhi High

¶16

Court Original Side Rules, as applicable, to the State of

¶17

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

¶19

Himachal Pradesh, against the order, dated 31^st March, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1786 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’), whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant-Kesari Devi.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties, to the lis, are hereinafter referred to, as referred, by the learned Single Judge.

¶21

Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court may be summed up, as under:

¶22

Petitioner-Kesari Devi invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of the writ of certiorari, for quashing the order, dated 29^th September, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Bilaspur (Annexure P-3), and 22^nd July, 2008, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division (Annexure P-5), whereby, the selection of the petitioner has been set aside.

¶23

Petitioner-Kesari Devi filed the writ petition on the ground that respondent No. 3 had invited the applications for the post of Anganwari Worker, on honorary basis, under Integrated Child Development Scheme at Anganwari Centre, Tared, under

¶24

¶25

Gram Panchayat Balh, Bhulana. She was called for interview. Consequently, she had appeared before the Selection Committee and was found suitable for the post. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued on 28^th August, 2007 and she had joined her duties at Anganwari Centre, Tared.

¶26

It is her further case that in the said selection process, respondent No. 4 had also appeared. During the selection process, respondent No. 4 was found to be married on 26^th April, 2007 and her contention, that she was living separately, since 1^st January, 2004, was also not found to be correct, hence, she had been declared as ineligible.

¶27

Thereafter, respondent No. 4-Ati Devi had preferred the statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, vide order, dated 29^th September, 2007 (Annexure P-3), allowed the appeal of respondent No. 4-Ati Devi by setting aside the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker.

¶28

According to the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly held that the notice/advertisement for the said post was published on 25^th August, 2007 and the interviews were held on 27^th August, 2007, as such, proper opportunity has not been

¶29

¶30

given to respondent No. 4-Ati Devi. It is the case of the petitioner that, in fact, the vacancies were advertised on 10^th August, 2008 and interviews were held on 27^th August, 2008.

¶31

The petitioner, thereafter assailed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, vide order, dated 22^nd July, 2008 (Annexure P-5), on the ground that the publication for second interview was issued on 25^th August, 2007 and the interviews were held on 27^th August, 2007, as such, the requisite time of one week from the date of publication was not given.

¶32

Assailing the above two orders, i.e. Annexures P-3 and P-5, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4-Ati Devi has not challenged the order, by virtue of which, she was held to be ineligible.

¶33

The orders, Annexures P-3 and P-5, have also been assailed, on the ground, that these orders are based upon the misreading of the document, Annexure P-4, by virtue of which, the interviews were fixed for 27^th August, 2007. Thus, the substantive relief for quashing of the orders, Annexures P-3 and P-5, has been sought in the writ petition.

¶34

¶35

On notice, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed their joint reply. In the reply, it is their stand that the guidelines, with regard to the appointment of Anganwari Worker/Helper were re-framed on 6^th July, 2007 and 20^th September, 2007. According to the said guidelines, the candidate aspiring to be the Anganwari Worker should be matriculate and for the post of Anganwari Helper, should be primary pass. The candidate should belong to the same village or feeding village for the selection of the Anganwari Worker/Helper. The Selection Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Sub Divisional Magistrate in every Block.

¶36

Supporting the orders impugned in the writ petition, i.e. Annexures P-3 and P-5, it is the stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 that the Deputy Commissioner, while accepting the appeal, filed by respondent No. 4-Ati Devi, has rightly held that the publication for the interview was made on 25^th August, 2007 and as such, the requirement of the Scheme has not been fulfilled.

¶37

On all these submissions, respondents No. 1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶38

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the selection and appointment of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled by the competent

¶39

¶40

authority, on the ground, that the advertisement was made on 25^th August, 2007 and the interviews were conducted on 27^th August, 2007. Highlighting the non-compliance of the requirement of the Scheme, it has been held that the selection of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of the law and the same has rightly been set aside, vide Annexure P-3.

¶41

Aggrieved from the said order, present appeal has been filed, reiterating the stand, as has been taken by the petitioner, in the writ petition.

¶42

Highlighting the fact that in the letter, Annexure A-1, only a request has been made to Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bilaspur, to convene the meeting of the Selection Committee on 27^th August, 2007, it has been prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside, by allowing the appeal, as well as, the writ petition, as prayed for.

¶43

Much relied upon document, in this case, is Annexure A- 1, which is on the file of the writ Court as Annexure P-4. This is a letter, which has been written by the Child Development Project Officer, Bilaspur to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sadar, District Bilaspur. The subject, in the said letter, has been mentioned as

¶44

¶45

“ Regarding filling up of post of AWWs/Helpers-interview on 27.08.07” . The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced as under:

¶46

“ The posts of AWWs/Helpers in the following Anganwari Centres are lying vacant and have been advertised vide this office letter of even number dated 10.08.2007. It is, therefore, requested to convene the Chairmanship of the Selection Committee on 27.08.2007 at CDPO Office, Bilaspur.

¶47

xxx xxx xxx”

¶48

A bare reading of this document shows that by virtue of this document, the Child Development Project Officer has simply requested the Sub Divisional Officer to convene the meeting of the Selection Committee on 27^th August, 2007.

¶49

No doubt, this letter was written on 25^th August, 2007, but, there is a reference with regard to the advertisement of the posts on 10^th August, 2007. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the advertisement was made only on 25^th August, 2007. The advertisement regarding the filling up of the posts of Anganwari Workers/Helpers was made on 10^th August, 2007. This letter has not rightly been considered either by the Deputy Commissioner, while passing Annexure P-3 or by the Divisional Commissioner, while passing Annexure P-5.

¶50

¶51

The learned Single Judge has also misread this document, as the contents of the letter are clear, depicting the request made by the Child Development Project Officer to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bilaspur, for convening the meeting of the Selection Committee, on 27^th August, 2007. This document cannot be said to be the advertisement, as, the advertisement has already been made on 10^th August, 2007, as is clear from the plain reading of the contents of the letter.

¶52

It is worthwhile to mention herein that respondent No. 4-Ati Devi has not challenged the decision, by virtue of which, she has been declared as ineligible and has only assailed the selection of the petitioner, on the ground, that the notice was published on 25^th August, 2007 and interviews were conducted on 27^th August, 2007.

¶53

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the only ground, upon which, respondent No. 4-Ati Devi, has challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner, was factually incorrect, as the advertisement for filling up the posts of Anganwari Workers/Helpers was made on 10^th August, 2007 and it was the letter, requesting the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,

¶54

¶55

only to convene the meeting of the Selection Committee on 27^th August, 2007, which was issued on 25^th August, 2007.

¶56

Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court and is liable to be reversed.

¶57

Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by petitioner-Kesari Devi is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 29^th September, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur (Annexure P-3); and the order, dated 22^nd July, 2008, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division (Annexure P-5).

¶58

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶59

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶60

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶61

December 15, 2022 ( rajni )

Kesari Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesari Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Laxmi Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Gulab Thakur Vs Chet Ram and Others

Manohar Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bal Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Liaq Ram Vs Hp State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.