1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 7506 & 5863 of 2023 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 7506 of 2023 Vimla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 2. CWP No. 5863 of 2023 Bharti Devi ……...Petitioner Versus M/s Mclain Laboratories & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner(s): Mr. B.S.Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 5863 and Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for petitioner in CWP No. 7506 of 2023. For the respondent(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 5863 of 2023. Mr. B.S.Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent No. 6 in CWP No. 7506 of 2023 _______________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above-captioned cases and the petitioners therein have laid challenge to 2 order dated 28.07.2023 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, exercising powers of Appellate Authority as per para 12 of Guidelines for the appointment of Anganwari worker/Helper under ICDS programme in Himachal Pradesh, this Court, after having clubbed both the cases, heard them together and the same are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. For having bird’s eye view, facts, which are common in both the cases, are that in the month of October, 2015, process was initiated to fill up post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Doghari, Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, by the official respondents. Petitioners in both the petitions being eligible appeared in the interview for the post on 06.11.2015. Bharti Devi (petitioner in CWP No. 5863 of 2023 and respondent No. 6 in CWP No. 7506 of 2023) was declared selected and she joined the post in question. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the selection of Bharti Devi, Vimla Devi (petitioner in CWP No. 7506 of 2023 and respondent No. 3 in CWP No.5863 of 2023) filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who directed the Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, District Mandi, to go into the veracity of Income Certificate submitted by both the petitioners. Vide order dated 15.02.2016, Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, found that 3 actual income of both the petitioners was much more than income shown in their Income Certificates submitted by them. While returning aforesaid finding, Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, also cancelled the Income Certificates issued in favour of the petitioners in both the cases. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid orders passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, petitioners in both the cases filed appeals in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, who vide separate orders dated 28.09.2016 (Annexures P-5 and P-7), rejected the appeals filed by both the petitioners, as a result thereof, order dated 15.02.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, thereby cancelling the income certificates issued in favour of both the petitioners, came to be upheld. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, petitioner namely Vimla Devi filed CWP No. 2963 of 2016 in this Court, as taken note hereinabove (Annexure P-6), however, the same came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner namely Vimla Devi to assail orders dated 15.02.2016 and 28.09.2016 before Additional Deputy Commissioner, before whom appeal filed by the petitioner was already pending adjudication. 5. Though Bharti Devi had not filed any writ petition against order dated 28.09.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, 4 upholding the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, but she also filed CWP No. 2801 of 2016 titled Bharti Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. seeking therein a direction to Additional Deputy Commissioner to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner Vimla Devi in a time bound manner. Vide order dated 17.11.2016, afore writ petition filed by the Bharti Devi came to be disposed of by this Court with a direction to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner Bharti Devi expeditiously. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, while acting as Appellate Authority in terms of para 12 of the Guidelines for the appointment of Anganwari worker/Helper under ICDS programme in Himachal Pradesh, proceeded to dispose of the appeal bearing No. 4 of 15 titled Vimla Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vide order dated 28.07.2023, whereby order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, upholding order dated 15.02.2016, came to be upheld. Now, since Additional Deputy Commissioner has upheld cancellation of income Certificates of both the petitioners, they have approached this Court by way of separate writ petitions, as taken note hereinabove. 5 7. Mr. B.S.Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel representing the Bharti Devi, vehemently argued that no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to Bharti Devi by Naib Tehsildar before ordering cancellation of Income Certificate issued in her favour. Mr. Chauhan, further states that otherwise also, Naib Tehsildar is not the competent authority to cancel the certificate, rather such order, if any, could be passed by the Executive Magistrate, who had actually issued Income Certificate, showing income of Bharti Devi to be less than Rs. 20,000/-. 8. Mr. Vinay Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Vimla Devi, while justifying cancellation of the Income Certificate issued in favour of Bharti Devi, vehemently argued that Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, while upholding the findings returned by Sub Divisional Magistrate and the order of cancellation passed by Naib Tehsildar, failed to take note of the fact that BDO Sundernagar, while conducting inquiry pursuant to order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, never associated Vimla Devi, rather merely on the statement of Panchayat Secretary proceeded to conclude that Vimla Devi had separated from mother-in-law on 26.01.2014. He submitted that though as per the statement of Panchayat Secretary, family of Vimla Devi had separated from her mother-in-law on 26.01.2014, but such fact was inadvertently not recorded in the Panchayat Register at 6 that time. He further submitted that though petitioner Vimla Devi had adduced on record copy of Parivaar Register (Annexure P-3) before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, thereby showing that her family had separated from her mother-in-law in 2014, but yet he failed to verify the aforesaid fact before upholding the finding returned by Naib Tehsildar that income of Smt. Vimla Devi was more than limit prescribed in guidelines. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that both the petitioners were eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker/Helper. Since Selection Committee found petitioner Bharti Devi to be more meritorious than Vimla Devi, she was given appointment against the post in question, however, as has been taken note hereinabove, selection of Bharti Devi was laid challenge in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, by way of an appeal filed by the Vimla Devi. Before appeal filed by the petitioner Vimla Devi could be considered and decided by the Appellate authority, matter came before this Court by way of writ petition filed by Vimla Devi i.e. CWP No. 2963 of 2016, wherein she laid challenge to order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, upholding the order of Naib Tehsildar, cancelling the Income Certificate issued in her favour. 7 10. However, this Court having taken note of the fact that appeal was already pending adjudication before Additional Deputy Commissioner, relegated the petitioner to afore authority reserving liberty to lay challenge to order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate. Similarly, this Court finds that though Bharti Devi at no point of time laid challenge to order passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, thereby cancelling her Income Certificate, but she laid challenge to afore order in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate by way of separate appeal, however, same was dismissed. Since pursuant to order passed by this Court in CWP No. 2963 of 2016, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, proceeded to decide the appeal filed by Vimla Devi by calling separate reports from the competent authority with regard to correctness of Income Certificates adduced on record by both the parties, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned Counsel in both the cases that parties were not given due opportunity of being heard. Though record reveals that Naib Tehsildar taking note of order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner in the appeal preferred by Vimla Devi conducted inquiry and submitted his report, thereby informing that Income Certificates adduced on record by both the parties are not based upon true facts and their income exceeded limit as provided under policy, but even otherwise Additional Deputy 8 Commissioner, before passing of order dated 28.07.2023 in Appeal No. 4 of 2015, directed Block Development Officer, Sundernagar, to conduct fresh inquiry, who after having conducted inquiry, reiterated that Income Certificate issued in both the cases are not based upon true facts. Block Development Officer after having conducted inspection of Panchayat record though arrived at a conclusion that Vimla Devi had separated from her mother-in-law in 2014, but since such fact never came to be incorporated in Panchayat Register till the year 2016, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, while returning the finding that since no record with regard to separation of Vimla Devi from her mother-in-law was available with Panchayat, there was no occasion for Executive Magistrate to issue Income Certificate in favour of Vimla Devi, thereby showing her income to be less than prescribed limit. 11. Documents adduced on record by both the parties as well as order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, laid challenge in the instant proceedings, clearly reveals that at relevant time, income of both the parties was more than the prescribed limit. During inquiry, it transpired that Vimla Devi herself submitted documents suggestive of the fact that there was land in the name of her mother-in-law. Since at the time of issuance of Income Certificate, petitioner Vimla Devi was residing with 9 her mother-in-law, her income was rightly counted while calculating income of Vimla Devi, who admittedly was part of joint family. It also transpired during inquiry that mother-in-law of Vimla Devi was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month as a social security pension in 2015. In the year 2015 total annual income of family of Vimla Devi was more than Rs. 42,742/-. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Naib Tehsildar Nihri, while ordering cancellation of Income Certificate issued in favour of Vimla Devi. Similarly, it also emerged during inquiry that income of the Bharti Devi was more than prescribed limit. As per documents adduced on record with regard to income of the husband of Bharti Devi, annual family income of Bharti Devi at relevant time was more than Rs. 1,30,662/- as husband of the Bharti Devi was working as EMT under CH Rohanda through GVK Company. 12. Though income of Bharti Devi was considered on the basis of inquiry conducted in the year 2021, but that may not be of much relevance for the reason that even in the year 2015, income of Bharti Devi was found to be more than Rs. 71,000/-. Though in the cases at hand, learned counsel representing the parties vehemently argued that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to their respective clients by the Inquiry Officers, but as has been observed hereinabove, petitioners in both the cases were 10 not only associated in inquiry, but were also provided adequate opportunity to adduce on record documents in their support, which they miserably failed to do. There is another interesting aspect that Bharti Devi never laid challenge to order dated 28.09.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, who upheld the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, thereby cancelling Income Certificate issued in her favour. 13. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, before passing order impugned in both the petitions, constituted a separate inquiry under the Chairmanship of BDO, who also supported the findings returned by the Naib Tehsildar, Nihri, that Income Certificates adduced on record by both the parties at the time of their interview for the post in question were not based on true facts and their income exceeded income criteria as prescribed in policy. 14. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no merit in both the petitions and accordingly, same are dismissed. Impugned orders dated 28.07.2023 laid challenge in the petitions at hand are upheld and respondents are directed to initiate fresh process for the selection of Anganwari Worker/helper in concerned Anganwari Centre, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks so that eligible candidate in terms of provision under policy is selected. Since Bharti Devi has been working 11 uninterruptedly after her being selected till date, she shall continue to work against the post in question till the new appointment is made. Needless to say, petitioner in both the cases are always at liberty to participate in fresh selection process, if eligible. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge