JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Sanju Bala – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Majheen, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra, was set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.03.2013. This order has been assailed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
2. Facts:-
2(i). The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 13.08.2007 in Anganwari Centre Majheen, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra, where she joined on 16.08.2007. Petitioner’s appointment and selection to the post of Anganwari Worker was challenged by respondent No.4 (Smt. Mangla Devi) before the Deputy Commissioner. The challenge was on the ground that in terms of the applicable eligibility criteria at the relevant time, the annual income ceiling of a candidate prescribed in the policy was Rs.12,000/- per annum, whereas petitioner’s annual family income far exceeded the prescribed criteria. Hence, she was ineligible for the post in question.
2(ii). Appeal No.8/2007 preferred by respondent No.4 was allowed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 06.10.2008. This order, inter alia, took note of the admission of the petitioner
Tridip Kumar Dingal and others Versus State of West Bengal and others
Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others Versus Abahi Kumar and others
Munindra Kumar and others Versus Rajiv Govil and others
Shesh Mani Shukla Versus District Inspector of Schools, Deoria and others
In service law there is no place for concepts of adverse possession or holding over.
Eligibility criteria for appointment must be strictly adhered to; membership in a joint family does not disqualify a candidate if income limits are met.
Engagement orders in public service can be revised when based on a mistake, particularly if misrepresentation affects eligibility.
The court ruled that the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker must adhere to government guidelines, and challenges to such appointments require timely action and proper standing.
Under Article 226, writ courts do not re-appreciate disputed facts in income certificate cancellations; assets inconsistent with declared low family income justify upholding authority's findings.
Eligibility criteria for government positions must be met, and discrepancies in application and residency status can result in the cancellation of appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.