NISHA DEVI versus STATE OF H.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 28-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 483 
NISHA DEVI 
V. 
STATE OF H.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2915-2917 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 28, 2014· 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law: Appointment as Anganwadi worker -
Income tax certificate issued to the appellant to the effect that 
her income was less than Rs.12000 p.a. making her eligible C 
for appointment as Anganwadi worker - Cancellation of 
apP.ointment by placing reliance on the report of Tehsildar that 
the appellant was owner of 1-19 Bighas of land which was in 
addition to her father's ownership of 6 Bighas of land - High 
Court a/so accepted the report without hearing the appellant D 
- On appeal, Held: High Court has acted upon this one sided 
or unilateral Report of the Tehsildar in arriving at the 
conclusion.that the appellant indeed had an income in excess 
of Rs. 12000 p.a. and, accordingly, was ineligible for 
appointment as an Anganwadi Worker - Before arriving at any 
E 
decision which has serious implications and consequences 
to any person, such person must be heard in his defence -
High Court did not notice the violation and infraction of this 
salutary principle of law - Accordingly, on this short ground, 
the impugn~d judgment is set aside - Matter remanded to the 
F 
Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after 
giving due notice to the appellant and affording her an 
opportunity of being heard - Rule of natural justice. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
2915-17 of 2014. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.12.2009, 
23.03.2010 & 27.04.2011 of the High Court of Himachal 
Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 4169 of 2009, Civil Review 
483 
H 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A No. 9 of 2010 & C.W.P. No. 4169 of 2009. 
Arun K. Sinha, Sumit Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Ajay for the 
Appellant. 
Suryanarayana Singh, AAG, Pragati Neekhra, San~eep 
B Narain for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
C 
2. Delay condoned. 
3. By means of these Appeals the Appellant/ Petitioner 
assails the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at 
Shimla in C.W.P.No.4169 of 2009, whereby her appointment . 
as an Anganwadi Worker, on 11.04.2007, was set aside. The-
D Appeals present a picture of protra~ted litigation. It appears 
that Respondent No.5 had successfully challenged the 
Appe(lant's appointment before the Deputy Commissioner. The 
Appellant's consequent Appeal had limited success before the 
Divisional Commissioner as he, by Order dated 13.05.2008, 
E had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, 
for fresh consideration. This time around the Appellant had 
succeeded upto the level of the Divisional Commissioner 
resulting in filing of C.W.P.No.1570 of 2009 before the High 
Court. The previous writ proceedings filed by Respondent No.5 
F succeeded inasmuch as it was held that the Divisional 
Commissioner had no power to review his own Order under 
the Scheme and Guidelines relating to 'Anganwadi Workers'. 
The narration of the complicated and convoluted sequence of 
events is not essential for deciding the present Appeals for the 
G simple reason that the impugned Judgments accept the Report 
of the Tehsildar, Kullu, which was itself predicated only on the 
revenue records and was arrived at without hearing the 
Appellant. In the said Report the Income Certificate issued to 
the Appellant, to the effect that her income was less than Rupees 
H twelve thousand per annum, thereby making her eligible for 
) 
NISHA DEVI v. STATE OF H.P. & ORS. 
485. 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
appointment as a Anganwadi Worker, was cancelled on the 
A · 
predication that she was the owner of 1-19 Bighas of land 
which was in addition to her father's ownership of 6 Bighas of 
land. 
4. In the course of arguments addressed before us, the 
8 
fervent submission of counsel of the Appellant that she was not 
afforded any opportunity of being heard has not been 
controverted, inasmuch as it has been contended that the 
Report of the Tehsildar was based on revenue records, which, 
therefore, was presumed to be correct. The High Court has 
acted upon this one sided or unilateral Report of the Tehsildar C 
in arriving at the conclusion that the Appellant indeed had an 
income in excess of Rupees twelve thousand per annum and, 
accordingly, was ineligible for appointment as an Anganwadi 
Worker. 
D 
5. Trite though it is, we may yet again reiterate that the 
principle of audi alteram pa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.