IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3048 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 24, 2011 Kanta … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 5. . Justice Sanjay Karol, J. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 5 i.e. Additional District Commissioner, Chamba dated 7.4.2011 contained in Annexure P-4, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Masroond, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P. (iii) That the records of the case may kindly be called for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 2 (iv) That the Civil Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with costs. (v) Any other writ, order of direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be issued/passed, in the interest of justice.” 2. Annexure P-4 is the impugned order passed by the Additional District Magistrate Chamba dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. For the post of Anganwari Worker, Anganwari Centre Masroond, applications were invited from suitable candidates. Amongst others, petitioner Ms. Kanta appeared for interview on 13.8.2007. The Selection Committee recommended her name and consequently she was offered appointment. Smt. Neemo Devi and Smt. Nimo Devi (respondent No. 6)(Both having same name but different spellings) assailed the same and in terms of order dated 30.9.2008, petitioner’s appointment was set aside on the ground that she did not belong to the feeding area of the concerned Anganwari Centre. 3. This order, in an appeal filed by the petitioner was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in terms of his order dated 22.5.2010 (Annexure P-2). However, petitioner approached this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition and in terms of judgment dated 2.7.2010, this Court while issuing certain directions directed the appellate authority to consider the case afresh which now stands decided in terms of the impugned order (Annexure P-4), relevant portion of which reads as under:- 3 “I have heard the argument advanced by the Counsels for both the parties and perusal the record produce before me by the C.D.P.O. Chamba. It is evident for the record placed before me that the present appellant was selected as Anganwari worker at Anganwari centre Masroond by the selection committee consisting of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Chamba being the Chairman and CDPO and Tehsil Welfare Officer being the Members. The record submitted by the CDPO Chamba and the certificates documents presented by the present appellant at the time of submission of her application form were scrutinized carefully, it is clear from the copy of pariwar register of Sh. Chand who is father of Miss Kanta and her name has been figured as a member of his family belongs to village Dhaluien Gram Panchayat Maroond. The bonafide himachali certificate, income certificate, non-employment certificate submitted by the appellant Miss Kanta at the time of making application for the said post were issued by Executive Magistrate Chamba also pointed that she is resident of villages Dhaluien, whereas anganwari centre to which her selection has been made as Anganwari worker falls in village Masroond. On the scrutinize of feeding area record placed on file by the CDPO Chamba. The Anganwari centre Masroond consists Masroond, Pukhroti, Seru, Ratodi and Tapoon villages as feeding areas, while the village Dhaluien to which the present appellant belongs falls under the Anganwari Centre at Dhaluein itself. The Rule 4 i.e. eligibility criteria provided in the scheme that only such female candidate to apply for the post of Anganwari worker or helpers who are the residents of the village/ward depending upon the rural 4 or the urban area, as the case may be where the centre is located. It is sufficient that the applicant belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwari area at the time of submission of the application. If the candidates are not available within the feeder area, application can be invited from the desirous candidates residing within the area of the concerned Gram Panchayat. In case the feeder area falls in 2 Gram Panchayats prior approval of the Director, Social Justice & Empowerment, H.P. will be required. In the present case the appellant does not belong to a village which covered as a feeder village/area for the Anganwari Centre Masroond hence not entitled for the appointment as Anganwari worker at Anganwari centre Masroond. In view of the above discussion and guidelines frame by the Social Justice & Empowerment Department, the appeal is dismissed and selection/ appointment of Miss Kanta d/o Sh. Chand is set aside and CDPO Chamba is directed to take steps to appoint next eligible candidate in case the list is available on the basis of interview held on 13.8.2007. The appeal file be consigned to G.R.R. after due completion.” 4. To ascertain the correctness of the aforesaid observations and findings, on 9.5.2011 this Court had summoned the record, including the survey conducted by the State pertaining to the feeding area of Anganwari Centre Masroond. The same has been produced before us today. 5. Having perused the same we are absolutely convinced and satisfied that village Dhaluien, from where the petitioner comes from, does not come within the feeding area of Anganwari Centre 5 Masroond, as has been so rightly held by the authorities below. Thus petitioner was ineligible for being considered for the post in question. Her appointment stood quashed way back in the year 2008 itself, but however due to various interim orders passed by the authorities, she continued to function on the post legitimately depriving the other eligible and deserving candidates. The Selection Committee ought to have been more vigilant in scrutinizing the applications while considering the candidates for the post in question. We see no ground to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the authorities below. We do not find that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands infringed or that any illegality or perversity stands committed by the authorities below. 6. Consequently the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. In the attending circumstances we refrain from passing any orders with respect to cost. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 24, 2011 (PK)