Remanded

Leela Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2023CWP/83/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order dismissing their appeals regarding Aanganwari Helper posts due to alleged excess income. The Court set aside the order for lack of findings on the selected candidate's income and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry while permitting the selected candidate to continue in service.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.12.2022 set aside; matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh inquiry and adjudication; selected candidate permitted to continue in service pending appeal.

Leela Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 304 of 2023 a/w

¶3

CWP No. 83 of 2023 Decided on : 01.12.2023

¶4

CWP No. 304 of 2023

¶5

Sheetla Devi .…Petitioner

¶6

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents CWP No. 83 of 2023

¶7

Smt. Leela Devi .…Petitioner

¶8

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

CWP No. 304 of 2023

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents-State. M/s Yudhvir Singh Thakur and Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates for respondent No. 4.

¶13

CWP No. 83 of 2023

¶14

For the petitioner : M/s Yudhvir Singh Thakur and Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents-State.

¶18

Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate for respondent No. 5.

¶19

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge ( Oral )

¶20

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Appellate Authority-cumDeputy Commissioner, Mandi, dated 19.12.2022, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner Sheetla Devi against the order passed by the SDO(C), Sundernagar, vide which Smt. Leela Devi was selected as an Aanganwari Helper, was dismissed by holding (a) that the income of Sheetla Devi was much more than prescribed limit and thus she was not eligible for the post of Aanganwari Helper; (b) that CDPO, ICDS Block Sundernagar was to hold fresh interviews for the post of Aanganwari Helper for Anagan Centre Bhawana, ICDS Block Sundernagar.

¶21

When these petitions were listed before this Court on 24.11.2023, the following order was passed by the Court:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Appellate Order suffers from a defect, ie, that while

¶22

¶23

holding that the annual income of the selected candidate was in excess of the criteria prescribed for appointment of Aaganwari Worker, no finding has been returned as to what actually was the yearly Income of the said candidate.

¶24

In this background, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be served in case the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the matter afresh after holding a fresh inquiry, if so required.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in CWP No 304 of 2023, submits he may be granted some time to have instructions in the matter.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the parties as well as learned Advocate General submit that interest of justice would be served, in case, these petitions are disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and by remanding the matter back to the said Authority with a direction to pass a fresh order in the matter after hearing the parties in light of order passed by this Court on 24.11.2023. Learned Counsel for the parties further submit that liberty be also granted to the petitioners to lead further evidence to substantiate their respective contentions.

¶27

Accordingly, as prayed for, the writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the order dated 19.12.2022,

¶28

¶29

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, in Appeal No. 02 of 2019, titled as Smt. Sheetla Devi vs. Smt. Leela Devi, by remanding the matter back to the Authority for adjudication afresh in light of the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2023. As far as the prayer of the parties to provide them opportunity of leading additional evidence, all that this Court can observe is that if the Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties, on the basis of material before it, is of the view that further evidence would further help in the adjudication of the appeal, then the Appellate Authority may do so. The selected candidate shall be permitted to continue to serve till the adjudication of the appeal.

¶30

The petitions stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Ajay Mohan Goel) December 01, 2023 Judge

¶32

(narender)

Leela Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Vs Vandana Goswami

Raju Singh Vs State of Hp

Gurdas Singh Vs State of Hp

Jia Lal and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sheetla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Khoob Singh Vs State of Hp