NISHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: HIMACHAL PRADESH)
Decided on
February 28,2014
NISHA DEVI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAVINDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-502] [REFERRED TO]P.SOUNDARRAJAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVANNAMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-75] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALYA CHAUBEY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-621] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAT MACHUAA FEMALE SELF HELF GROUP VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
SAI NATH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN KHSHA MOHAMMADPUR TAJWAPUR THRU. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-348] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. P.M. GRANITES VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA JATAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-497] [REFERRED TO]
ARACHANA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-193] [REFERRED TO]
I. SINO PHOM VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTI D/O SHIVRATAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAWATI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN RAMGAON THRU MANAGER O.P. VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. BASIC EDUCATION LKO [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-349] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA MATIVAR SHIKSHAN PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
MANABAI VS. SOMAJI KALUBHAI MALI [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-169] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M P & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-139] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJEE SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-503] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH VS. G. PATTANAIK [LAWS(SC)-2021-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH RASIK BIHARI PUROHIT VS. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-264] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SINGH PATEL AND 10 OTHERS; SHIVAM KUMAR NAYAK AND 13 OTHERS; PRAVEEN KUMAR GAUTAM; ANAND MISHRA AND 8 OTHERS; MOHAMMAD SHAMS; SYED AHMAD ALI; KAILASH VISHWAKARMA; SAMRAH AHMAD; RAJESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS; ABHISHEK KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
AWDHESH DANDOTIYA VS. STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
PREM LATA VS. JDA [LAWS(J&K)-2023-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
JASODABEN P.SENVA VS. STATE OF GUJRAT & ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
DROMATI DEVI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-172] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Delay condoned.
(3.)By means of these Appeals the Appellant/ Petitioner assails the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P.No.4169 of 2009, whereby her appointment as an Anganwadi Worker, on 11.04.2007, was set aside. The Appeals present a picture of protracted litigation. It appears that Respondent No.5 had successfully challenged the Appellant's appointment before the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellant's consequent Appeal had limited success before the Divisional Commissioner as he, by Order dated 13.05.2008, had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, for fresh consideration. This time around the Appellant had succeeded upto the level of the Divisional Commissioner resulting in filing of C.W.P.No.1570 of 2009 before the High Court. The previous writ proceedings filed by Respondent No.5 succeeded inasmuch as it was held that the Divisional Commissioner had no power to review his own Order under the Scheme and Guidelines relating to 'Anganwadi Workers'. The narration of the complicated and convoluted sequence of events is not essential for deciding the present Appeals for the simple reason that the impugned Judgments accept the Report of the Tehsildar, Kullu, which was itself predicated only on the revenue records and was arrived at without hearing the Appellant. In the said Report the Income Certificate issued to the Appellant, to the effect that her income was less than Rupees twelve thousand per annum, thereby making her eligible for appointment as a Anganwadi Worker, was cancelled on the predication that she was the owner of 1-19 Bighas of land which was in addition to her father's ownership of 6 Bighas of land.
(2.)Delay condoned.
(3.)By means of these Appeals the Appellant/ Petitioner assails the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P.No.4169 of 2009, whereby her appointment as an Anganwadi Worker, on 11.04.2007, was set aside. The Appeals present a picture of protracted litigation. It appears that Respondent No.5 had successfully challenged the Appellant's appointment before the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellant's consequent Appeal had limited success before the Divisional Commissioner as he, by Order dated 13.05.2008, had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, for fresh consideration. This time around the Appellant had succeeded upto the level of the Divisional Commissioner resulting in filing of C.W.P.No.1570 of 2009 before the High Court. The previous writ proceedings filed by Respondent No.5 succeeded inasmuch as it was held that the Divisional Commissioner had no power to review his own Order under the Scheme and Guidelines relating to 'Anganwadi Workers'. The narration of the complicated and convoluted sequence of events is not essential for deciding the present Appeals for the simple reason that the impugned Judgments accept the Report of the Tehsildar, Kullu, which was itself predicated only on the revenue records and was arrived at without hearing the Appellant. In the said Report the Income Certificate issued to the Appellant, to the effect that her income was less than Rupees twelve thousand per annum, thereby making her eligible for appointment as a Anganwadi Worker, was cancelled on the predication that she was the owner of 1-19 Bighas of land which was in addition to her father's ownership of 6 Bighas of land.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.