The court upheld the validity of the income certificate issued for the appointment of an Anganwari Worker, emphasizing that disputed factual matters cannot be revisited in judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

“(i) Entire record pertaining to the present case, may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order, Annexure P-3 dated 21.04.2011 passed by Tehsildar Mandi, Annexure P-4/A passed on 21.11.2012 by learned Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi and other Annexure P-5 dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and for quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwari Worker.

(iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to give the appointment of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Darvyas, P.O. Thina Galu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. to the petitioner with effect from06.08.2007 with all consequential benefits.”

2. Applications were invited by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the year 2007 for appointment of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Darvyas, Post Office Thina Galu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

3. Petitioner and respondent No.3, besides others, applied for being appointed as Anganwari Worker. The interviews were conducted on 25.07.2007. The result was declared on 06.08.2007. Respondent No.3 Ms. Asha Kumari was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Darvyas, P.O. Thina Galu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi.

4. The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi in appeal No. 794 of 2007 under para 12 of the Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers (for short, “Scheme”). The petitioner remained unsuccessful and her appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi on 08.09.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner availed the remedy of another appeal under the Scheme before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi by way of Miscellaneous Appeal No.659 of 2008. The second appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi on 17.11.2008.

5. The petitioner then approached this Court by way of CWP No.42 of 2009 to assail the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court and the case was remanded back with the direction to conduct inquiry regarding income of the candidates through the competent authority and then to decide the appeal afresh.

6. In compliance to aforesaid judgment, the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi conducted an inquiry and submitted his report on 21.04.2011 (Annexure P-3). The income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 was found to have been correctly issued. The petitioner preferred objections against the report submitted by the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi, which were rejected by the Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi vide order dated 21.12.2011(Annexure P-4). Finally, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-5) rejected the case of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has again approached this Court by way of this petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the report submitted by the Tehsildar Sadar Mandi, Annexure P-3, is cryptic and is not based on correct factual position. According to petitioner, respondent No.3 has got 60 bighas of land from which the annual income is Rs.50,000/-. The father-in-law of respondent No.3 is stated to be drawing pension of Rs.3,000/- per month. In addition, sister-in-law of respondent No.3 is also alleged to be working as Anganwari Worker. As per petitioner, the family of respondent No.3 is living jointly and the income of the family is much more than the prescribed limits under the Scheme. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the subsequent orders passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Mandi vide Annexure P-4 and the