trial

Angan­bari Work­ers — These cases per­tain to issue regard­ing can­cel­la­tion of appoint­ment of peti­tion­ers to post of Angan­wadi Workers/Helpers — It is not in dis­pute that Angan­wadi Workers/Helpers, in these cases, were appointed on basis of a valid Income Cer­tifi­cate, issued by a com­pe­tent author­ity, at rel­e­vant time — Even now, that cer­tifi­cate of income, issued by com­pe­tent author­ity, for pur­pose of appoint­ment, has not been can­celled — In case author­ity is of view that income cer­tifi­cate issued to any Angan­wadi Workers/Helpers in these cases, is not based on proper com­pu­ta­tion of income, it will be open to com­pe­tent author­ity to take steps to can­cel same — Com­ing to other cases, issues involved per­tain to eli­gi­bil­ity con­di­tions other than income — In some cases issue raised is as to com­pu­ta­tion of income, based on fam­ily sta­tus — Com­pu­ta­tion of income and fam­ily sta­tus are to be deter­mined as on date of appli­ca­tion for appoint­ment — Yet another con­tention has been raised as to whether author­ity which decided an appeal, namely Appel­late Author­ity (Divi­sional Com­mis­sioner), was com­pe­tent to enter­tain a review — Another con­tention per­tains to power of del­e­ga­tion of Appel­late Author­ity — power con­ferred on del­e­gate is power, that is con­ferred under guide­lines — There­fore, framers of guide­lines, namely Gov­ern­ment, is com­pe­tent to con­fer power that is con­ferred on Appel­late Author­ity, on any other author­ity as well — Appel­late Author­ity has not made any sub del­e­ga­tion — We find from guide­lines that an aggrieved can­di­date alone is com­pe­tent to pre­fer appeal under Clause 12 of Pol­icy Guide­lines — Another legal con­tention is as to whether Appel­late Author­ity has power to con­done delay in fil­ing appeal — Being a statu­tory author­ity, in terms of Pol­icy Guide­lines, Appel­late Author­ity does not have power under Sec­tion 5 of Lim­i­ta­tion Act.

Coun­sels:
PP Chauhan for peti­tioner
RK Sharma, Ld. Addl. AG for respondents

Jus­tice Kurian Joseph, Chief Jus­tice (Oral). [/restrict]

These cases per­tain to the issue regard­ing can­cel­la­tion of appoint­ment of the peti­tion­ers to the post of Angan­wadi Workers/Helpers. In major­ity of the cases, appoint­ments have been can­celled on the ground that the income of the fam­ily of the appointees was much more than the upper limit fixed in the eli­gi­bil­ity cri­te­ria and the cer­tifi­cates of income were not cor­rect. We pro­ceed to deal with this type of cases sep­a­rately in the first part of this order. Rest of the cases involv­ing dif­fer­ent issues are being dealt with in the sec­ond part.

2. It is not in dis­pute that the Angan­wadi Workers/Helpers, in these cases, were appointed on the basis of a valid Income Cer­tifi­cate, issued by a com­pe­tent author­ity, at the rel­e­vant time. But, it appears, owing to dis­pute on the income, the Appel­late Author­ity in these cases, has looked into the mat­ters, has con­ducted an inde­pen­dent inquiry and has come out with a ver­sion that the cal­cu­la­tion of income by the author­ity, who issued the cer­tifi­cate, is not proper. It has also been held by the said Appel­late Author­ity that the income is beyond the limit, pre­scribed for the eli­gi­bil­ity for the appointment.

trial