IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1733 of 2017 Decided on : 24.07.2026 Rekha Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State. Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Respondents No.5 and 7 proceeded against ex parte. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (Oral) That the Interview for the Post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Bhurdan under ICDS Project Tauni Devi was held on 08.08.2007 and Smt. Rekha Devi (petitioner) was selected on the post of Anganwadi worker. The selection of petitioner was challenged by the respondents No.5 to 7 on the ground of income and feeder area before the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur. The Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur vide its order dated 28.06.2008 upheld the appointment of the petitioner (copy of the orders dated 28.06.2008 is annexed as P-2 with the petition). 2. Against these orders an appeal was filed by respondent No. 5, before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The Divisional Commissioner Mandi, vide order dated 21.10.2008, dismissed the appeal of respondent No.5 and upheld the order of the lower appellate authority. The order of Divisional Commissioner Mandi was also challenged by Respondent No.5 by way of filing CWP No.2829/2008, titled Reena Kumari Vs. State of HP, in this Court. The Court while disposing of the CWP No.2829/2008, titled Reena Kumari Vs. State of HP, vide judgement dated 17.05.2010, remanded the case back to the Appellate authorities to consider the case afresh in the light of clarifications /observations of the Court. 3. In compliance to the judgement of this Court, Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur again heard the matter and vide its order dated 24.05.2011 quashed the appointment of the petitioner on income ground and directed the concerned CDPO to appoint the next candidate in merit. Copy of order -3- dated 24.05.2011 is annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition. 4. Against this order the petitioner again filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi. The Divisional Commissioner Mandi vide its order dated 13.06.2011 ordered for maintenance of Status quo and vide its further order dated 19.10.2011 set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur and remanded the case back to Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur to decide the case afresh after affording the reasonable opportunity to both the parties. Copy of the order date 19.10.2011 passed by Divisional Commissioner Mandi is annexed as Annexure P-4 with the petition. 5. In compliance of these orders, Deputy Commissioner Hamirpur, HP, directed the Tehsildar Bhoranj to inquire into the income of the petitioner. Tehsidar Bhoranj cancelled the income certificate of the petitioner vide his order dated 16.05.2013. The order dated 16.05.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before SDO(c) Hamirpur, who again vide his order dated 28.02.2014 upheld the order of Tehsildar Bhoranj. Copies of orders dated 16.05.2013 & -4- 28.02.2014 are annexed as Annexures P-5 & P-6 with the petition. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur in view of the orders passed by Tehsildar Bhoranj and the SDO(Civil) Bhoranj dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his orders dated 01.04.2014 on the grounds that the income of the petitioner during the year 2006-07 was more than the prescribed limit for the appointment of the Anganwadi Worker. The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur also directed the CDPO Tauni Devi to start the process of selection afresh. Copy of the orders dated 01.04.2014 is annexed as Annexure P-7 with the petition. Against these orders, the petitioner filed appeal before Divisional Commissioner Mandi, who vide his order dated 11.04.2017 again upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, copy of orders dated 11.04.2017 is annexed as Annexure P-8 with the petition. 7. It is in the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, that the present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) The writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2017 (Annexure P-8 page 44 of the paper book), passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as -5- the order dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-7 page 40 of the paper book) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, since the same have been passed without taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. (ii) The writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the income verification report dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-5 page 32 of the paper book) by the Tehsildar Bhoranj and order passed by the SDO(Civil) in appeal No.6/2013 (Annexure P-6 page 35 of the paper book).” 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. Interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Bhurdan, under ICDS Project, Tauni Devi, was held on 08.08.2007. The petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker. At the time of the said appointment, the income certificate placed on record was dated 15.05.2007. In the said income certificate, the income of the husband of the petitioner had been stated to be Rs.7,500/- per annum. A copy of the same has been placed as Annexure P-1 at Page 14 of the paper-book. -6- 10. The said income certificate was subjected to a verification in Case No. 3/2012 titled Reena Kumari vs. Rekha Devi, pending consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. The verification was done by the Tehsildar, Bhoranj. The report of the said authority has been placed on record as Annexure P-5 at Page 32 of the paper- book. After going through the record, the Tehsildar, Bhoranj, observed that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in multifarious economic activities. The husband of the petitioner was found to be a government contractor working with the Public Works Department (PWD). Besides the aforesaid, for obtaining a license to work as a contractor, the husband of the petitioner had filed an affidavit, wherein, the husband of the petitioner had shown his movable and immovable property to be worth Rs. 6 lacs. He had been found to be working as a contractor since the year 2003–04. 11. Besides the aforesaid, the husband of the petitioner was also a Chairman of a Vocational Training Institute (Educational Society). Other than the aforesaid, the husband of the petitioner owned a scooter and a Santro car. The car had been purchased in the year 2008, as is evident from the verification of the income certificate done previously by the -7- Tehsildar, Bhoranj and the report is of dated 05.05.2011 (Annexure P-3 at Page 19 of the paper book). A PCO/STD was also found to be registered in the name of the petitioner. 12. Based on the aforesaid, the Tehsildar, Bhoranj was of the view that the income certificate dated 15.05.2007 (Annexure P-1 at Page 14 of the paper book) had been obtained by the husband of the petitioner by concealing material facts. 13. The aforesaid cancellation of the income certificate in terms of the report dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-5 at Page 32 of the paper book) was assailed by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. 14. The findings of fact returned by the Tehsildar, Bhoranj qua the income certificate in the case at hand were affirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhoranj, District Hamirpur. 15. The contention raised before the authorities that for the year 2006–2007, no work as a contractor had been done by the petitioner with the Public Works Department was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had been working as a contractor since the year -8- 2003–2004 and nothing had been placed on record for the years prior to & subsequent to 2006–2007 to show that no works had been executed by the petitioner. 16. Hence, both the authorities found no merit in the submissions so made. No illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the findings of fact returned by both the authorities qua the income certificate in the case at hand has been pointed out calling for interference by this Court. 17. In the case at hand, in terms of the report of the Tehsildar, Bhoranj dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-5 at page 32 of the paper book) as affirmed by the SDO (Civil) vide order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-6 at page 35 of the paper book), the income certificate dated 15.05.2007 (Annexure P-1 at page 14 of the paper book) was set aside, as having been obtained by suppression of material facts. As has already been pointed out, it is in the appeal so dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, i.e., Appeal No.3/2012, that an inquiry had been ordered with respect to the income certificate of the petitioner. 18. The aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 11.04.2017 (Annexure P-8 at -9- page 44 of the paper book) passed in Case No. 13/2014, i.e., appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-7). In both the appeals, the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as an Anganwari Worker was the fact that the income certificate on which the claim was being staked had been set aside, thereby making the petitioner ineligible for the post of an Anganwari Worker. 19. Since in the case at hand, no infirmity calling for interference from this Court in the findings qua the report of the Tehsildar, Bhoranj dated 16.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) as affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) vide order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-6) has been found; therefore, the two orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner, dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioner, dated 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-7, Page 40 of the paper book) and 11.04.2017 (Annexure P-8, Page 44 of the paper book) respectively, call for no interference. 20. 20. Hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, directions given in the judgment dated 01.04.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur (Annexure P-7, Page 40 of the paper book) to start fresh process for -10- appointment for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center, Budhan, under ICDS Project, Tauni Devi, be started at the earliest and appointment be made within a period of three months from today. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 24th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)