IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.:1353 /2007 Reserved on:2.7.2008 Decided on: 29.7.2008 Sushila Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 5. Ms. Bhawana Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.6. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner submitted an application for being considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Awat Bhedhal under the Scheme/Guidelines framed by the State Government on 11th April, 2007. She was issued call letter on 24th July, 2007. She appeared in the interview on 9th August, 2007. However, the appointment letter was not issued to her. The petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the respondents to offer her appointment letter and not to hold fresh interviews for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Respondents No.1 to 5 have filed a detailed reply. The sum and substance of the reply of respondents No.1 to 5 is that the petitioner was not eligible for being considered for the post in question under clause 4 (e) of the scheme notified on 11th April, 2007. This court on 29th August, 2007 had directed that the interview may take place, but no final result/decision shall be taken without the leave of the Court. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that in fact fresh interviews were held on 30.8.2007. Respondent No.6 was considered against the post of Anganwadi Worker and she was offered appointment letter on 31.8.2007. However, this appointment letter was cancelled on 29th September, 2007. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate had strenuously argued that his client was fully eligible and qualified to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker and the respondents could not hold fresh interview on 30th August, 2007. He also contended that the selection of respondent No.6 to the post of Anganwadi Worker is contrary to the scheme. He further contended that the family of his client had legally separated in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayti Raj Act, 1994. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Bhawana Dutta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had strenuously argued that the family of the petitioner was separated on 5.3.2006 and according to them as per the policy, the cut off date was 1st January, 2004. They also contended that initially respondent No.6 was offered appointment pursuant to interview dated 30.8.2007 but when the authorities came to know about the orders passed by this Court on 29th August, 2007, the appointment was cancelled on 29th September, 2007. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings carefully. It will be apt at the threshold to take into consideration sub clause (e) of clause 4 of the policy under the eligibility criteria of notification dated 11.4.2007, which reads as under: “4 (e) : Those belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st January, 2004.” It is evident from the phraseology of sub clause (e) of clause 4 of the scheme that the family ought to have been legally separated as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1.1.2004. In the present case the application has been moved by the husband of the petitioner as is evident from Annexure A-1 on 5th March, 2006 to the President Gram Panchayat Koti Utrau. The application was considered on 5th March, 2006 and the necessary certificate Annexure A-2 was issued on 5th March, 2006 itself. It is thus evident that the petitioner’s family has legally separated as per the provisions of the Panchyati Raj Act, 1994 on 5th March, 2006 and as per the scheme, the separation ought to have been before 1.1.2004. It was precisely for this reason that the petitioner though interviewed on 9th August, 2007 was not offered appointment letter. There is an endorsement made in the copy of pariwar register (page 91 of the paper book) that the family of Sh. Chhatar Singh and Smt. Sushila separated from the family of Sh. Dhongu Ram in the presence of Gram Sabha on 5.3.2006. This Court had directed on 29th August, 2007 that though the interview could take place however, final decision should not be taken without the leave of the Court. However, the respondents had fixed the interview on 30.8.2007 (Annexure A-12). The stand of the respondents is that they were not aware of the order dated 29.8.2007 and 4 immediately when they were apprised of the order dated 29.8.2007, the appointment letter issued in favour of the respondent No.6 on 31.8.2007 was cancelled on 29th September, 2007. Respondent No.6 has annexed all the certificates required under the scheme with her application and was found suitable for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the interview held on 30.8.2007. In fact, the petitioner had not appeared in the fresh interview which was held on 30.8.2007. The submission of Mr. Anil Chauhan that the husband of the petitioner has not filed any application for getting his family separated on 5th March, 2006, is hard to be believed. In fact, it is evident from the record that the husband of the petitioner had filed an application on 5.3.2006. It was on the basis of this application that necessary corrections were made in the record of the Panchayat. The submission of Mr. Anil Chauhan that the husband of the petitioner has filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that he has not moved any application seeking separation of his family from the family of Dhongu has no bearing on this case. The only person, who was interested in getting the family separated, was either the petitioner or her husband. There is no reason why anybody else will move an application on behalf of the petitioner’s husband for the separation of the family knowing fully well about the consequences of false declaration. The upshot of the above discussion is that: i) the petitioner was not eligible as per sub-clause (e) of clause 4 of the scheme dated 11.4.2007 since her family got legally separated from the family of Dhongu on 5th March, 2006; and ii) The selection of respondent No.6 on the basis of interview held on 30.8.2007 is in accordance with law; 5 Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to respondent No.6 to the post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Awat Bhedhal pursuant to her selection dated 30th August, 2008 within a period of 2 weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. 29.7. 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*