High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 11 SHI CK 0092

Anjana Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 November 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dev Darshan Sood, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 1792 of 2008-F

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 342 words

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The order dated 25.6.2008, Annexure P-3, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Hamipur on the case before him determined the income of the 4th respondent to be more than 12,000/- per annum and ordered the cancellation of her appointment. The fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi against the order, Annexure P-2, passed by the Deputy Commissioner which appeal was allowed primarily on the ground that since the petitioner was not a candidate. She has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the fourth respondent. To say the least, the order is bereft of any legality. Even if, the petitioner was not a candidate for being appointed as a Aganwari Worker that did not preclude the Deputy Commissioner from determining the income of the fourth respondent on the complaint of the petitioners. Adverting to the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi what I find is that the order is terse and bereft of any reasoning. Second point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the post in question was filled up (a) without publicity or any advertisement (b) that the appointment be made in accordance with law; (c) that the mandatory conditions for appointment be complied with. Surely, the Divisional Commissioner should and ought to have determined these facts. In these circumstances the order, Annexure P-3, is set aside.

2.

It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that appellate jurisdiction is now no longer vested in the Divisional commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who decides the cases with no appeal provided. In these circumstances, I direct that the case be sent back to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur other than Ms. Nandita Gupta for determination afresh on the points raised hereinabove. Petition stands disposed of and direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur to decide the case within three months from the date when this order is first presented before him. All miscellaneous pending applications also stand disposed of.