Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.2915-2917 OF 2014    [Arising out of SLP©Nos.26106-08 of 2011]

NISHA DEVI ..APPELLANT VERSUS

STATE OF H.P. & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

O R D E R  

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J.

1. Leave granted. 2. Delay condoned.

1

Page 2

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  Appeals  present  a  picture  of  protracted  litigation.    It  appears  that  Respondent No.5 had successfully challenged the  Appellant’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,  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  

2

Page 3

Respondent  No.5  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 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  twelve thousand per annum, thereby making her  eligible for appointment as a Anganwadi Worker,  was cancelled on the predication that she was  the owner of 1-19 Bighas of land which was in  

3

Page 4

addition to her father’s ownership of 6 Bighas  of land. 4. In the course of arguments addressed before  us, the 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  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. 5. Trite  though  it  is,  we  may  yet  again  reiterate  that  the  principle  of audi  alteram  partem admits of no exception, and demands to  

4

Page 5

be adhered to in all circumstances.   In other  words,  before  arriving  at  any  decision  which  has  serious  implications  and  consequences  to  any person, such person must be heard in his  defence.   We find that the High Court did not  notice  the  violation  and  infraction  of  this  salutary  principle  of  law.   Accordingly,  on  this short ground, the impugned Judgments and  Orders  require  to  be  set  aside,  and  are  so  done.  The  matter  is  remanded  back  to  the  Divisional  Commissioner  for  taking  a  fresh  decision  after  giving  due  notice  to  the  Appellant and affording her an opportunity of  being  heard.    The  Divisional  Magistrate,  Kullu,  shall  complete  the  proceedings  expeditiously,  and  not  later  than  six  months  from the date on which a copy of this Order is  served on him. 6. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

5

Page 6

7. The parties to bear their respective costs.

…………………………………………J (T.S. THAKUR)

…………………………………………J (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

NEW DELHI; February 28, 2014.

6