AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge
In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of order dated 30.12.2011 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur at Nahan in case No. 155/4 of 2007 whereby the appeal preferred by her against the selection of 5th respondent as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Khano Khanani, P.O. Mahipur, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur was dismissed. It has been claimed in the writ petition that respondent No. 5 was living in a Joint family having sufficient income and as such was not eligible to be considered for the post in question. On the other hand, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appear in the interview irrespective of she had submitted the application for appointment against the post in question.
On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, we find no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order Annexure P-2 for the reasons that the additional Deputy Commissioner below had not only considered the report submitted by the Tehsildar, but also sought a report qua the points raised by the petitioner in her appeal. The order Annexure P-2, which is reasoned one and self-speaking, make it abundantly clear that the income of 5th respondent from all sources at the relevant time was Rs. 12,000/- per annum.
On the other hand, the petitioner as per her own version could not obtain the requisite income certificate and may be due to her income from all sources was found to be more than Rs. 12,000/- at the relevant time and as such was not eligible to appear in the interview. Although the application, if any, she made for the post in question has not been brought on record yet even if her version in the writ petition that she was not called for the interview is believed to be true, she seems to be not called to appear in interview due to her application being not supported by a certificate of income, was rejected.
The petitioner even cannot be said to be an aggrieved party for the reason that as per the ratio of the judgment dated 17.5.2010 of this Court in CWP No. 767 of 2009, titled Smt. Sunita Devi versus State of H.P. & Others, selection can only be challenged by a candidate who participated in the selection process.
There is nothing in the writ petition that the certificate of income was denied to her by the competent authority. The submissions to the contrary made by learned counsel representing the petitioner are not supported by any record. Above all had the certificate of income been denied to the petitioner by the Tehsildar concerned, she is now at liberty to approach the competent authority, in accordance with law, against such denial and get the certificate of income issued. She can approach this Court again by filing a fresh petition, if still feels aggrieved in any manner whatsoever. In view of the above this petition is dismissed in limini, however, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in this Court, in accordance with law, if she still feels aggrieved, in any manner whatsoever.