Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:22951 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.362 of 2025 Decided on: 15.07.2025 Vimla Devi ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Mehta and Mr. Devi Singh Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby two writ petitions have been dismissed one filed by the present appellant and the another by the contesting respondent No.6. 2. The learned Single Judge had dismissed both the writ petitions and upheld the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent No.3 dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-9), which had been impugned in the said writ petition by the present appellant in CWP No.7506 of 2023 titled Vimla Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. 3. The official respondent found that the annual income of the present appellant was Rs.42,742/- and did not accept the fact that the mother-in-law of petitioner was living separately since there was a copy of Parivar Reigster submitted where her mother-in-law was shown as a family member. Though the upper income limit from Rs.15000/- has been increased to Rs.20000/- under Clause 4(d) in the existing guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Worker/Mini Anganwari Worker/Anganwari Helper under ICDS Programme in Himachal Pradesh, but the same had been breached by both the candidates. 4. Also, it was further noticed that the application had been made to the Panchayat Secretary for making the correction only when the Income Certificate was challenged and there was a report that the family was not living separately and the toilet also had been only made in the year 2016 and there was a finding that susbequently the family was separated in the year 2016, which was post the cut off date as such. 3 5. Resultantly, the said official respondent No.3 had come to the conclusion that both the candidates as such could not be eligible for appointment, because the annual income of the family had exceeded Rs.20,000/- per annum. 6. Resultantly, challenge to the selection order dated 06.11.2015 of the private respondent-Smt. Bharti Devi was upheld to that extent, but keeping in view the earlier order passed in CWP No.2963 of 2016 dated 22.05.2019 (Annexure P-6), a finding was recorded that both the candidates as such were not eligible as per the criteria prescribed by the Government and necessary action should be taken. 7. The learned Single Judge while upholding the said order, also came to the conclusion that at the time of issuance of Income Certificate, the petitioner was residing with her mother-in- law and therefore her income had rightly been counted as a part of the joint family as she was receiving social security pension in the year 2015. It was noted that the report had been submitted of both the candidates and their income had exceeded the income criteria, as prescribed in the policy. 8. The fact that separation had not been mentioned in the Panchayat Register till the year 2016 weighed with the learned Single Judge to uphold the findings as such of the 4 Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 9. It is also pertinent to notice that the learned Single had directed that fresh process be initiated for selection of the Anganwari Worker, while permitting Bharti Devi to work on account of being selected till the new appointment is made. Liberty was also given to both the candidates to participate in the fresh selection process. 10. The appeal filed by Bharti Devi in LPA No.198 of 2025 came up before us firstly on 27.05.2025 and the matter was adjourned to 29.05.2025, on which date, the said appeal had been dismissed as not pressed. Counsel for the present appellant was present on the said date as counsel for private respondent No.3 in the said appeal. 11. The findings recorded as such by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh reads as under:- “I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments submitted by both the Counsels, carefully gone through the entire record and have reached on the conclusion that the only issue that is required to be determined in this case is income criteria i.e. whether the appellant as well as respondent selected for the post of Aanganwari Worker is having annual income as per the income criteria prescribed by the Government. I have also peruse the notifications issued by the State Govt. from time to time. In this context, the relevant notification no. SJE-A(1)-3/2011 dated 27.04.2013, where in the State Govt. has increased 5 the upper income limit from Rs.15000/- to Rs.2000/- per annum mentioned in Clause 4(d) in the existing guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Worker/Mini Anganwari Worker/Anganwari Helper under ICDS Programme in Himachal Pradesh. Furthermore, vide report of Tehsildar Nihri it is explicitly clear that during the year 2015 the annual income of appellant Smt. Vimla Devi was 42742/- Rupees and respondent Smt. Bharti Devi is 147266/- Rupees. Smt. Vimla Devi’s objection that her mother-in-law was living separately also does not seem correct since Vimla Devi herself has submitted copy of Parivar Register where her mother-in-law is shown as a family member. She should have made corrections in the Parivar register copy before submitting it to the Tehsildar for issuing income certificate, if her case was genuine, but no such application was made to Panchayat Secretary as per record available and the matter was brought to notice only when her income certificate was challenged. Further, the District Panchayt Officer’s report vide letter 28.04.2022 also makes it clear that the family was not living separately and had also not made a toilet which was only made in 2016 and subsequently family was separated in 2016. There is no doubt related to Bharti Devi’s income calculated vide letter dated 14.12.2021 as well. Her husband’s income record has also been sought and it is crystal clear that income is more than the prescribed limits. In view of the above, both the candidates i.e. appellant Smt. Vimla Devi and respondent Smt. Bharti Devi are not entitled for the post of Anganwari Worker/helper because the annual income of the family of both the petitioner and the respondent is exceeding Rs. 20000/- per annum." 12. The above findings were apparently based on the factual matrix and in such circumstances, it has been found that both the candidates as such had income far above the prescribed limit. 13. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition as the purpose as such is to see whether the authorities had proceeded in accordance with law. 6 14. The writ petition as such is not to be used to get into the nitty-gritty of the factual matrix which had already been done by the authorities and the factum of such selection as such had been doubted since there was no toilet as per the record for independent family. Therefore, it is apparent that there is no illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the present appellant for the appointment to the said post, which prescribes the qualification and prescribes the limit of income for the said post. The effort as such was to reduce the income by showing the separation and it is only at the subsequent stage, an application was made since inter se there was dispute regarding challenge to the Income Certificate. 15. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the authorities, which has been duly upheld by the learned Single warrants no further inquiry, in the present Letters Patent Appeal and also when the other candidate had also withdrawn the Letters Patent Appeal after arguing for some time. 16. Resultantly, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and take a different view. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 7 17. All pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 15th July, 2025 (munish thakur)