Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/7190/2014 on 30 December 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7190 of 2014
Date of decision : 30.12.2014
Smt. Sushma Katoch
… Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G. with Mr. V.S.
Chauhan, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikram
Thakur, Dy. A.G. for State.
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner, Smt. Sushma Katoch was appointed as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Rajal, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. Private respondent, Smt. Binta Devi assailed such appointment by filing an appeal before the competent authority. Petitioner raised objection with regard to its maintainability, which was neither considered by the competent authority nor the appellate authority and as such vide impugned orders dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) and 9.12.2013 (Annexure P-8) petitioner’s selection Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
…2…
and appointment stand quashed, pursuant whereof she stands discharged vide impugned order dated 8.8.2014.
2. Noticeably, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1096 of 2010, titled as Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, alongwith connected matters, on 17.5.2010, has held as under:- “19. Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”
3. In our considered view, the authorities seriously erred in ignoring the objections so raised by the petitioner hereinabove with regard to maintainability of
…3…
appeal, challenging her selection. The appeal itself was barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the period prescribed under the Policy. Petitioner’s selection and appointment can only be assailed under the Scheme so notified by the Government. As such, on this short ground alone, we quash and set aside impugned orders dated 21.4.2009 ((Annexure P-5), 9.12.2013 (Annexure P-8), pursuant whereof petitioner stands discharged vide impugned order dated 8.8.2014 (Annexure P-10). It is always open for the State to initiate appropriate action, if so required and desired, in accordance with law. Petitioner shall be allowed to forthwith join at her original place of posting.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s) if any.
(Sanjay Karol),
Judge.
(P.S. Rana), December 30, 2014 (KS)
Judge.-