IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.60 of 2019 a/w LPA No.61 of 2019 Decided on: 7.11.2023

1. LPA No.60 of 2019 Suman Thakur …. Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others. …. Respondents

2. LPA No.61 of 2019 Suman Thakur o …. Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others. …. Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge W hether approved for reporting¹ :

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondent-State Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4 in LPA No.60 of 2019 and for respondent No.5 in LPA No.61 of g 2019.

Sandeep Sharma, J Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases, they were heard together and are now being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. Letter Patent Appeal No.60 of 2019 filed under Clause 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, lays challenge to judgment dated 1.8.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP 2380 of 2017 and CWP

1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

No.802 of 2017 titled as Suman Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby writ petition having been filed by appellant, laying therein challenge to order dated 18.02.2017 passed by Executive Magistrate-cum-Assistant Collector, 2^nd Grade, Neether, Sub Tehsil Neether, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, thereby cancelling Income Certificate issued to appellant dated 01.08.2016, came to be dismisosed.

3. Similarly, Letter Patent Appeal No.61 of 2019, lays challenge to judgment dated 1.8.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP 802 of 2017 titled as Suman Thakur Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby writ petition having been filed by appellant, laying therein challenge to order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kullu in case No.07/ADC/2016, titled as Smt. Salochana vs. State of H.P. and others, thereby setting aside the appointment of the petitioner, came to be dismissed.

H4. Precisely, the facts of the case, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that authority concerned with a view to fill up one post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Neether, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in the year 2016 invited applications. The appellant as well as respondent No. 4 being fully eligible applied for the said post. The Selection Committee recommended the appellant herein to be appointed against the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Neether, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The office of Child Development Project Officer Nether, District, Kullu, offered appointment to the appellant as Anganwadi Worker and she joined as such on the said date itself. . 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of the appellant, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal in terms of under Section 12 of the Notification dated 1o1.04.2007 i.e. the Notification issued by Government containing the Scheme/Guidelines for engagement of Anganwadi Worker/ Helper on honorarium under the integrated Child Deuvelopment Scheme before the Appellate Authority. In the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 4 alleged that since income of the appellant was more than prescribed limit, her candidature ought not have considered by the Selection Committee. Respondent claimed that Income Certificate produced by the appellant dated 01.08.2016, issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Sub – Tehsil, Neether to the effect that annual income of the family of the Happellant was Rs. 35,000/- is/ was based on wrong information and as such, same being result of concealment of facts, deserves to quashed and set aside. Respondent claimed in the appeal that income of the appellant from all sources, on the date of interview, was more than Rs. 1,00,000/-.

6. To ascertain the correctness and genuineness of aforesaid allegation leveled by respondent No. 4, Appellate aut