Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16636 (HP)

Rekha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-23

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the order passed by L.d. Sub Divisional officer (Civil) Balh, Distt Mandi, H.P may kindly be quashed qua the petitioner and the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the offer of appointment letter be issued in favour to the present petitioner being fully eligible and meritorious candidate in the merit list. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the present petitioner as Anganwari Centre at Ward No.1 Goda Gagal Tehsil. Balh, Distt. Mandi, H.P being fully eligible and meritorious.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre, Ward No.1 Goda Gagal Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., for which interviews were conducted on 15.09.2020. The petitioner, respondent No.4 and proforma respondents applied for the same. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.4, petitioner filed an appeal against the Income Certificate of the Private respondents before Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Balh, District Mandi, H.P. Simultaneously, the private respondent No.4 also preferred an appeal against Income Certificate of the petitioner as well as the other candidates also. The appeal filed by Smt. Neha (respondent No.4) was decided by the Appellate Authority in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 30.09.2023, Authority held the Income Certificate of Smt. Sunita Rani, Smt. Madhurika and Smt. Promila and Smt. Rekha Devi to be bad in law and cancelled the same. 4. In the appeal preferred by the present petitioner alongwith other incumbents against Smt. Neha, the Income Certificate of Smt. Neha was also cancelled, based on the report of Tehsildar. Feeling aggrieved by cancellation of her Income Certificate, present petitioner, namely, Rekha Devi has filed this petition. 5. While cancelling the Income Certificate of the present petitioner, the following findings were returned by the Appellate Authority:- “A) Income certificate of Smt. Rekha Kumari w/o Sh. Tek Chand A detailed inquiry into the record produced by the appellant against Smt. Rekha Kumari revealed that she has two pucca makans and has also hired one shop for tailoring purpose for which she is duly paying rent as per report of Pradhan Gram Panchayat Goda Gagal. Moreover, her husband is owner of motorcycle HP33B6171. Tek Chand A detailed inquiry into the record produced by the appellant against Smt. Rekha Kumari revealed that she has two pucca makans and has also hired one shop for tailoring purpose for which she is duly paying rent as per report of Pradhan Gram Panchayat Goda Gagal. Moreover, her husband is owner of motorcycle HP33B6171. After going through all the evidences and documents, this court is of the opinion that it is not possible for a person having yearly income less than Rs 35000 to have all such assets. Hence, the income certificate No.INC2020911215648735 issued in favour of Smt. Rekha Kumari is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.” 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the Authority erred in not appreciating that the petitioner had no means of income and the Income Certificate which was issued in her favour as a genuine certificate. Learned Counsel also referred to the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 15.03.2026, which though is not on record, but copy whereof has been provided for the perusal of the Court and by referring to the contents therein, learned Counsel submitted that the findings returned by the Appellate Authority were contrary to the ground reality. He submitted that the house constructed by the petitioner was under the Schedule Caste House Grant Scheme in the year 2017-2018, for which a grant of Rs. 1,30,000/- was granted to the family to construct the residential house. He further submitted that besides this, neither the petitioner nor her husband owned any other house. Learned Counsel also submitted that the findings returned by the Appellate Authority qua the hiring of one shop for tailoring purposes and the petitioner duly paying rent for the same were incorrect, the petitioner was suffering from a disk problem and the shop remained closed for three years and the statement of the owner of the shop was recorded to this effect that she had not received any rent for the years 2016 to 2019 from the petitioner and had taken only electricity bills from her. Learned Counsel also submitted that the house which belonged to the petitioner consisted of two rooms and a kitchen and as far as the factum of a Motorcycle being owned by the husband of the petitioner was concerned, the same was purchased by him on second had basis. 7. Learned Counsel also submitted that the house which belonged to the petitioner consisted of two rooms and a kitchen and as far as the factum of a Motorcycle being owned by the husband of the petitioner was concerned, the same was purchased by him on second had basis. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Additional Advocate General as also learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that the findings returned by the Authority were based on an enquiry, which was conducted during the course of the adjudication of the appeal and what the petitioner is now racking up are disputed issues which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, they prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of the case including the last affidavit filed. 9. In terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority which is under challenge, the record of enquiry produced before it revealed that the petitioner was having two pakka houses and had also hired one shop for tailoring purpose, for which she was duly paying rent in terms of the report of Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Goda Gagal. Her husband was stated to be owning a Motorcycle. On these basis the Authority held that it was not possible for a person who was having annual income of less than Rs.35,000/- to own these assets. 10. This Court concurs with the findings written by the Appellate Authority. In the Income Certificate, the family income of the petitioner has mentioned less than Rs.35,000/-. It was not mentioned as to what actually is the family income of the petitioner. 11. Even if, it is to be assumed that the family income of the petitioner was Rs.35,000/- per annum, this means that the daily income of the family was only Rs.100/- maximum. Now the petitioner wants this Court to believe that in Rs.100/- per day, the petitioner was looking after herself, her husband and their four children. In other words, a family of six members was making their two ends meet besides having enough to support a Motorcycle etc. on the basis of the family income of Rs.100/- per day. 12. As per order passed by the Appellate Authority, the present petitioner is stated to be in possession of two pakka makans. In other words, a family of six members was making their two ends meet besides having enough to support a Motorcycle etc. on the basis of the family income of Rs.100/- per day. 12. As per order passed by the Appellate Authority, the present petitioner is stated to be in possession of two pakka makans. Even if, it is to be assumed that she was having only one pakka makan than two, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the entire house was built out of the grant which was paid to her, because obviously, a pakka house consisting of two rooms and a kitchen could otherwise not have been constructed with the amount of the grant. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that she had indeed hired some premises for tailoring purposes, but her contention is that because of a disk problem, she could not use said premises nor any rent was paid by her to the landlord, though electricity bills were paid. 13. Therefore, in this backdrop, obviously as the means at the disposal of the petitioner were suggestive of the fact that the family income of the petitioner was not less than Rs.35,000/- per annum, the findings returned by the Appellate Authority do not call for any interference and this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.