Eligibility criteria for appointment must be strictly adhered to; membership in a joint family does not disqualify a candidate if income limits are met.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. This is petitioner’s third writ petition instituted in this Court assailing the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Helper on 21.07.2007 in Anganwari Centre Susaya, Post Office Piplughat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan.

2. Facts:

(i) Pursuant to a selection process initiated by the respondent-Department, Smt. Sunita Devi-respondent No.6 was selected as Anganwari Helper on 21.07.2007. Petitionerfiled an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, assailing the selection of respondent No.6. The appeal was dismissed on 29.06.2009.

(ii) Feeling aggrieved against the rejection of her appeal, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. The Divisional Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for fresh adjudication. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan once again dismissed the appeal on22.10.2011.

(iii) Petitioner next filed a Civil Writ Petition, bearing CWP No.11563 of 2011. The writ petition was allowed on 12.05.2017. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 22.10.2011 was quashed and set aside, being non-speaking. Operative part of the judgment dated 12.05.2017 reads as under:-

“16. In this view of the matter as the order dated 22.10.2011 Annexure P6 passed by learned second appellate authority prima facie is non speaking and unreasoned order, the same is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second appellate authority with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Said authority shall also grant one opportunity to each of the parties to place on record documents if they so desire to produce in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the learned second appellate authority on 29.5.2017. Said authority is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any eventuality on or before 31st October, 2017. Till then private respondent shall be permitted to perform her duty. It is clarified that this court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and the authority shall be at liberty to adjudicate upon the appeal strictly on the basis of material on record. The petition is allowed in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application if any.”

In compliance to the above direction, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan considered the matter afresh. Petitioner, inter alia, contended before the Deputy Commissioner that:-

(i) As per eligibility criteria, annual family income of the candidates could not exceed Rs.8000/-. Income certificate furnished by respondent No.6 showed her annual family income to be Rs.7500/-, whereas petitioner’s family income was Rs.7000/- per annum. Therefore, petitioner was required to be given preference for having lesser annual income.

(ii) Respondent No.6 was not eligible to participate in the selection process as she was member of joint family on the date of interview.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected above contentions as also certain other grounds taken by the petitioner. It was held that if the candidate’s annual income was not more than Rs.8000/-, she was eligible to participate and further that policy did not provide for additional marks or preference to a candidate having lesser income than others within the range of income limit of Rs.8000/- per annum. Petitioner’s second ground of respondent No.6 belonging to joint family as on the date of interview and therefore, not eligible for the post, was also not accepted. The appeal was, therefore, yet again dismissed vide a detailed order passed on 19.08.2017.

(iv) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted her second writ petition, being CWP No.2791 of 2017. Almost same grounds were urged by her as taken before and decided by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 19.08.2017. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2020. The Court did not find any illegality in the impugned o