Kamla Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others

Petitioner-Kamla Devi, presently working as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri [Shamshi in District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh] has come up before this Court, seeking following reliefs: High Court of H.P.^{aside and the selection/appointment}

Case as set up by Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the ICDS-Guidelines issued for the selection of Anganwari Workers and pursuant to the issuance of recruitment notice and the petitioner being eligible, applied for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri [Shamshi in District Kullu]. It is averred that the petitioner and private respondent No 5-Sujata Bodh, were the only two candidates who had applied for being considered for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri and based on the performance in the Interview held on 10.07.2014 and the higher overall merit, as assessed by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Anganwari Worker and she joined as such in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri.

2(i). Feeling aggrieved against the selection and appointment/joining of the petitioner, the Respondent No 5-Sujata Bodh filed an appeal before Respondent No 4-Deputy Commissioner Kullu on 11.07.2014 and the same was decided on 27.07.2015 [Annexure P-1], with the specific finding that both the candidates i.e. the petitioner as well as the private respondent No 5 were not eligible for selection for the post of Anganwari Worker as their income exceeded the required parameters in view of the report furnished by Tehsildar Bhunter on 11.05.2015 [Annexure P-2]. In these circumstances, the selection of the petitioner was quashed and set-aside. The Respondent No 4-Deputy Commissioner forwarded a copy of orders passed by him on 27.07.2015 to the Respondent no 3-Child Development Officer Kullu for information and necessary action.

2(i). Petitioner has assailed the orders dated 27.07.2015, Annexure P-1, on various grounds with the further contention that the petitioner was still continuing as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri under the respondents No 1 to 4 and thus the orders passed by the Respondent No 4-Appellate Authority-Deputy Commissioner Kullu on 27.07.2015, Annexure P-1, being vitiated by non-application of mind, being perverse, arbitrary and illegal may be quashed and set aside; with the prayer to direct the Respondents to allow the writ petition and to direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to work as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri with all accruable service benefits.

Petitioner filed the instant petition on 03.09.2015 and upon listing of the petition before Division Bench of this Court, notices were issued directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to file the reply and vide orders dated 07.09.2015, status quo as on that day was directed to be maintained.

3(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Respondents filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 18.11.2015 of Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh.

3(ii). Reply-Affidavit indicates that the interview for post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri, under ICDS was held on 10.07.2014 and the petitioner was selected by Selection Committee. It is averred that the selection of the petitioner was challenged by the Respondent No 5 by filing an appeal before Respondent No-4-Appellate Authority -Deputy Commissioner Kullu and vide orders dated 27.07.2015, Annexure P-1, selection of the petitioner was quashed and set aside, in view of the report furnished by the Tehsildar Bhunter on 11.05.2015, Annexure P-2, revealing the income of the family of the petitioner to be Rs 34000/-, which exceeded the prescribed limits and due to this, income certificate was cancelled. It is averred that in compliance to the Orders passed by Deputy Commissioner Kullu, the Respondent No.3-CDPO terminated the services of the petitioner on 14.08.2015 [Annexure R-1]. In aforesaid background, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the petition.

3(iv). Respondent No 4-Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner Kullu filed a separate Reply-Affidavit dated 13.11.2015, stating that the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker was quashed and set-aside in appeal vide orders dated 27.07.2015, after perusing the report submitted by the Tehsildar Bhunter on 11.05.2015 [Annexure R-4/1]. It is averred that the Impugned Order has been passed after complying with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. In above backdrop, a prayer is made for dismissing the petition.

Upon listing of the matter on 24.04.2026 and on 22.05.2026, Learned Counsel for petitioner apprised this Court that even after passing of the orders on 27.07.2015 by Respondent No 4-Appellate Authority and notwithstanding the passing of the termination orders on 14.08.2015 [Annexure R-1] since her substitute did not come to take the charge and in this backdrop, the petitioner continued working, as such, therefore, the Division Bench of this Court, passed the status quo orders on 07.09.2015, the petitioner continued working as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri till day. Based on above disclosure by Learned Counsel for petitioner, this Court passed an order on 24.04.2026 directing State Authorities to furnish Instructions. This Court passed further orders on 22.05.2026 and 19.06.2026 directing the Respondent No 2-Director, Women and Child Development and the Respondent No 3-CDPO, Kullu to explain as to under what circumstances, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Anganwari Worker till day. Accordingly, the State Authorities have furnished the Instructions dated 21.05.2026 and Respondent No 2 and 3 have filed their respective affidavits dated 30.07.2026, stating that the petitioner continued in de-facto physical possession of the work place due to status quo order dated 07.09.2015 throughout the pendency of the instant petition from September 2015 till July 2026.

Heard, Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Nadda, Learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents 1 to 4 and though Mr. Manmohan Singh Katoch, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No 5, but in terms of order dated 19.06.2026, statement was made that Respondent No 5 does not want to continue with the present proceedings.

Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Orders dated 27.07.2015, Annexure P-1, quashing the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri Shamshi in District Kullu, cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny; and the action of the State Authorities in allowing the petitioner to continue as such from July 2014 till July 2026 [where she is still continuing] is affirmed, for following reasons:

6(i). Material on record establishes that the State Government issued the ICDS Guidelines for selection and appointment as an Anganwari Worker on 11.04.2007 prescribing the terms and conditions of selection by Three-Member Selection Committee. Based on the Guidelines in force at the relevant time, the respondents-State issued the recruitment notice for filling up one post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri in the month of July 2014. Since the petitioner was eligible in terms of criteria-parameters prescribed in the Guidelines, she .applied for the advertised post of Anganwari Worker.

After examining the eligibility in terms of guidelines, the petitioner and Respondent no 5 were interviewed on 10.07.2014 by a duly constituted three member Selection Committee consisting of Sub-Divisional Officer [C] as Chairman and CDPO and Tehsil Welfare Officer as members of said Committee. Based on the higher comparative merit, the petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri and she joined as such on 11.07.2014. Even though the Private Respondent No 5-Sujata Bodh had assailed the selection of petitioner before the Respondent No 4-Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner Kullu, in July 2014, vide Case No-1/ DC/ AW/2014 and the said appeal had resulted in passing of the Impugned Orders on 27.07.2015 [Annexure P-1] then also, aforesaid Impugned Order cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny, for the reason, that firstly, once the petitioner was eligible and she was interviewed by duly constituted selection committee and was thereafter selected in terms of the ICDS-Guidelines then, the Respondent No 4-Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the Impugned Orders on the basis of non-existent facts; and secondly, the petitioner could not be sought to be non-suited from the post in terms of the Impugned Order, by taking into account extraneous factors and by ignoring germane considerations, that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of income certificate issued by competent authority on 23.01.2014; and thirdly, reliance placed by the Appellate Authority on the report of Tehsildar dated 11.05.2015 [Annexure P-2], which was founded on a report given by Patwari while passing the Impugned Order without applying its mind as to material aspect that these reports were not applicable in fact-situation of instant case; and lastly, the aforesaid reports and material therein was collected behind the back petitioner and the undisclosed reports-material could not have formed the basis for passing the prejudicial order against the petitioner; and on other grounds detailed in the succeeding paras of this judgement. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order cannot sustain and the same is interdicted and the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker, in facts of instant case, is upheld.

6(ii). Impugned Order has been passed by the Respondent No 4-Deputy Commissioner on 27.07.2015 merely on the basis of the report furnished by Tehsildar on 11.05.2015 [Annexure P-2], which was further based on the report furnished by Patwari but without applying his mind that the controversy involved before Tehsildar was altogether different and alien or non-existent facts cannot form the basis for passing the Impugned Orders, and therefore, aforesaid order cannot sustain and is set-aside.

6(iii). Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No 4 on 27.07.2015, setting aside the selection of the petitioner, on the basis of the report submitted by Tehsildar on 11.05.2015 is perverse, is vitiated by non-application of mind and is unsustainable, for the reason, firstly, the subject matter of proceedings pending before Tehsildar related to the issuance of Income Certificate dated 28.10.2013 to the petitioner; and secondly, the Tehsildar concerned has travelled beyond the subject in dispute and therefore, the report of Tehsildar is without jurisdiction; and thirdly, action of the Tehsildar in cancelling the income certificate of the petitioner issued on 23.01.2014, on the basis of which the petitioner was selected as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri but without there being any proceedings qua the validity of the said certificate is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal; and fourthly, the action of the Tehsildar in cancelling the income certificate issued on 23.01.2014 without giving a show cause notice, without affording a personal hearing, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the same; and passing of the prejudicial order of cancelling the income certificate dated 23.01.2014 on undisclosed material behind the back of the petitioner is non-est ; and fifthly, the action of the Tehsildar in cancelling the income certificate of petitioner issued on 23.01.2014 amounts to carving out an ineligibility when, the subject matter of the proceedings before the Tehsildar were regarding the validity of income certificate dated 28.10.2013 which was valid for a period of one year as per the norms and on expiry of said period, this certificate had ipso-facto become inoperative; and sixthly, even if Tehsildar being the competent authority to issue the income certificate had the power to cancel the said certificate, then also, the power of cancellation of certificate does not give any leverage to such an authority to exercise its power and discretion by giving a complete go-bye to the minimum safeguards of principles of natural justice before resorting to the prejudicial/adversial action. Exercise of such power by Tehsildar, in cancelling such certificate, involves an element of adjudication, adversely affect the right of a person, then, in such an eventuality, Tehsildar cannot abruptly cancel the certificate with the first stroke of a pen and that too in utter violation of Para 28.20 of the HP Land Records Manual (as inserted vide Notification No: Rev B (3)-1/2004-Vol-I dated 20.12.2010 and Para 28.11 of modified norms dated 09.01.2012) mandating that the cancellation cannot be ordered after making due enquiries and after hearing the person concerned and by passing a speaking order. Non-compliance of this provision is apparent in the instant case, which establishes manifest arbitrariness and gross unfairness in State action. Once report submitted by Tehsildar ignored “relevant considerations” then, the same was perverse and reliance placed on said perverse report, by the Respondent No 4 vitiates the Impugned Order.

6(iv). Report of the Tehsildar dated 11.05.2015, Annexure P-2, reveals that said report was based on the further report submitted by Patwari concerned on 07.03.2015. The report of patwari could neither be relied upon nor acted upon by Tehsildar and thereafter by Respondent No 4-Deputy Commissioner for the reason, firstly, the report of patwari dated 07.03.2015 cannot be made applicable retrospectively; and secondly, the report of patwari cannot be relied upon behind the back of petitioner; and thirdly, the report of patwari was based on mere ipse-dixit and conjectures and surmises but without having recorded the version-statement of either the petitioner or her husband and in absence of this, the findings recorded regarding the income of the petitioner to be 30,000/- per annum was based on non-existent facts and was perverse; and fourthly, once earlier Income Certificate was issued to the petitioner by Tehsildar on 23.01.2014 then its cancellation by giving a go-bye to the provision of Para 28.20 of HP Land Records Manual, vitiates the same; and lastly, the report of Patwari dated 7.3.2015 could neither be relied upon nor can it form the basis for cancelling income certificate issued on 23.01.2014 without furnishing any such material which was allegedly collected by Patwari concerned. Undisclosed material if any, in report of Patwari and the resultant report of Tehsildar dated 11.05.2015 [Annexure P-2] cannot form basis for arriving at a prejudicial or adversial finding against the petitioner so as to render him ineligible or to deprive him of the post on which the petitioner was duly selected by the selection committee, in accordance with the extant norms-ICDS-Guidelines.

Discussion aforesaid, establishes that the Impugned Order was passed by the Respondent No 4-Deputy Commissioner on 27.07.2015 in a casual and cryptic manner by ipso-facto relying upon the report of Tehsildar dated 11.05.2015 [Annexure P-2], when, aforesaid report was founded on undisclosed material and such report was perverse and was a result of the prejudicial action unknown in law. Resultantly, the Impugned Order cannot sustain and is set-aside.

Material on record indicates that upon due selection by the selection committee, petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri on 10.07.2014 and she joined as such on 11.07.2014. Her selection was assailed by Respondent No 5-Sujata Bodh, by filing an appeal before Deputy Commissioner and said appeal was decided on 27.07.2015, Annexure P-1. Based on the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, though an order was passed on 14.08.2015, Annexure R-1, terminating her from service, but with the stipulation that the petitioner shall handover the charge of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri to Smt. Pushpa Devi, Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Behad. State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit have not dealt with as to whether Pushpa Devi, had gone for taking charge from the petitioner or not. In this backdrop, the petitioner was allowed to continue and to work as Anganwari Worker in said Centre till the filing of instant petition [CWP No 3828 of 2015] on 03.09.2015 and thereafter till the passing of status quo orders by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.09.2015, as under:

7(i). Notably, the instant petition was listed on various dates till 17.04.2017. Case records reveal that matter was listed on 24.04.2026, after more than nine years, when, Learned Counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that petitioner is still working as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri [Shamshi, District Kullu] and in this backdrop, this Court passed an order on 24.04.2026, directing the State Authorities to furnish Instructions, whether the petitioner was still continuing or not. Incompliance, Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh, furnished Instructions on 21.05.2026 [Taken on record] admitting that the petitioner is still continuing as an Anganwari Worker till day, in the following terms:

7(i-a). Upon listing of the matter on 22.05.2026 this Court directed the Respondents 2 and 3, to file an Affidavit as to in what circumstances, the petitioner was allowed to continue as Anganwari Worker, after termination of service on 14.08.2015 when, the order of status quo was passed on 07.09.2015. The operative part of the order dated 22.05.2026 reads as under:

7(i-b). Matter was then listed on 19.06.2026 when, Learned Counsel for the Private Respondent No.5, on Instructions, states that she does not intend to continue with the present proceedings and based on such statement, this Court passed the following operative order:-

7(i-c). As a sequel to orders dated 22.05.2026 and 19.06.2026 (supra), the CDPO Kullu-Respondent No 3 and the Director, Women & Child Development-Respondent No 2 have filed their respective affidavits on 30.07.2026 and on 15.06.2026. The operative part of affidavit(s), read as under:

7(i-d). A combined reading of Instructions dated 21.05.2026 and the affidavits dated 15.06.2026 and 30.07.2026 filed by the Respondents goes on to establish that though the services of the petitioner stood terminated on 14.08.2015 and this Court had passed the order of status quo on 07.09.2015 yet the petitioner was allowed to continue in de-facto physical possession of the work place. Affidavits filed by these respondents establish that department felt that the physical eviction or termination of the petitioner when the matter was pending would not be proper and therefore, respondents have admitted that petitioner had continued to work as Anganwari Worker for the entire duration from 2015 to 2026.

Based on above background, this Court is of the considered view that even if the services of the petitioner stood terminated on 14.08.2015 and her substitute did not come forth to take the charge and the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till the passing of status quo order on 07.09.2015 and is still continuing as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Gadouri, from 2015 till 2026 therefore, the petitioner deserves to be continued in service for the reason, firstly, the Respondents-State Authorities have not pointed out anything adverse regarding the work, conduct and performance of the petitioner for the entire period from 2014 till 2026; and, secondly, even the petitioner has gained experience of working as an Anganwari Worker for the entire span from 2014 till 2026 and experience so gain is in itself a qualification; and thirdly, even after passing of status quo orders on 07.09.2015 the State Authorities have allowed the petitioner to continue in service till 2026 then, State Authorities having made the petitioner to continue in service cannot be permitted to turn around and question her continuance after [12] twelve long years in view of the principle of acquiescence; and fourthly, the State Authorities in the Instructions and Affidavits have admitted that the petitioner is continuing and as Anganwari Worker from the date of her initial appointment in 2014 till 2026; and fifthly, as discussed above once the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Worker after due selection by the selection committee on 10.07.2014 as per the ICDS-Anganwari Guidelines then, her claim for continuance has force and the prejudicial impugned order and the all adversial orders based thereon, cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny; and sixthly, as per present ICDS-Guidelines issued for selection of Anganwari workers on 24.08.2023, as amended on 29.02.2024 as amended from time to time, the minimum age for the appointment as Anganwari Worker is 18-35 years, whereas, the petitioner has already crossed age of 41 years ; and seventhly, as per the present ICDS Guidelines of 2023-2024, the State Authorities have prescribed minimum educational qualification of 10+2 for selection whereas, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 10/11.07.2014, being a Matriculate as per ICDS-Guidelines issued on 11.04.2007 and in this backdrop, the prescription of higher qualification of 10+2 shall render the petitioner ineligible for the said post; and eighthly, once the State Authorities have misconstrued the status quo orders, then, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the wrongs or inaction of the State Authorities in terms of the principle encompassed in legal maxim, Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria or commodum ex injuria sua memo habere debet, meaning “no man can take advantage of his own wrong”. While applying this principle to the public authorities, the Courts firmly establish that the State cannot take advantage of its own default, negligence, or illegal act; and ninthly, the contention of Learned State Counsel, in view of Para-4 of Reply-Affidavit that a prayer was made on 30.07.2015 to vacate interim orders is misconceived and this plea cannot come to the aid of the State Authorities when no interim orders dated 30.07.2015 was ever passed in the instant proceedings. Lethargy, inaction, negligence and non-existent facts cannot form the basis for depriving the petitioner of the right of continuance on the post where she has been continuing and working for last more than [12] twelve years; and tenthly, the State Authorities cannot be permitted to obliterate the past-service rendered by petitioner without any fault attributable to the petitioner; and eleventhly, the State Authorities cannot be permitted to take leverage of their own wrongs or inactions; and lastly, the State Authorities having “misconstrued the status quo orders” for the entire period from 07.03.2015 till July 2026, and the petitioner is still continuing in service as such therefore, the principle, actus curiae neminem gravabit, meaning thereby, that the act of Court will not prejudice anyone and non-listing of the writ petition for hearing for 9 long years, from

2017 to 2026 is a ground to show indulgence, by permitting the petitioner to continue, by balancing the rights of the petitioner vis-à-vis the interests of the State Authorities and also to safeguard her legitimate expectation and to enable her to eak out a living for herself and her family. Considering the matter in totality, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be retained in service and to continue in service, as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Gadouri hereinafter, with all service benefits accruing therefrom.

Given as above, Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No 4-Appellate Authority-Deputy Commissioner Kullu on 27.07.2015, Annexure P-1 and foundational action undertaken by Tehsildar in his Report dated 11.05.2015, Annexure P-2 on the basis of non-existent facts and by ignoring relevant aspects, by giving a complete go-bye to the norms and law being perverse is unsustainable, Once foundational orders are untenable, therefore all resultant orders including adversial orders/actions {including Annexure R-1} are declared inoperative for all intents and purposes. In-addition, based on the above discussion, the petitioner deserves to be retained/continued in service hereinafter.

No other points were raised or argued.

In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in following terms:

In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.