IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6522/2011 Decided on:29.9.2011 _____________________________________________ Narveda Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the interviews for the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Lower Chowk, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi were held on 27.7.2007. Name of respondent No.4 was recommended for appointment to the post of Anganwari Helper. Petitioner assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. He allowed the same on 24.3.2008. Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Divisional 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Commissioner, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 16.6.2008. Respondent No.4 approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1064 of 2008. It was disposed of by this Court on 17.5.2010 with certain directions/instructions to the effect that respondent No.4 could approach the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi for the redressal of her grievance. Respondent No.4 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 30.3.2011 dismissed the appeal holding that the same was not within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e. 15 days. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 26.7.2011 vide Annexure P-5. 2. In the instant case, the interviews were held for the post of Anganwari Helper on 27.7.2007. Respondent No.4 was selected. The result was declared on 8.8.2007 and the appointment letter was issued on the same day. Respondent No.4 joined her duties on 10.8.2007. Petitioner came to know about the appointment of respondent No.4 when she joined her duties on 10.8.2007. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 24.8.2007. Since the petitioner came to know about the appointment of respondent No.4 only on 3 10.8.2007, the appeal stood filed within a period of 15 days, i.e. 24.8.2007. The Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner have erred in law by coming to a conclusion that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was barred by limitation. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexures P-4 dated 30.3.2011 and P-4 dated 26.7.2011 are quashed and set aside. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi is directed to rehear the appeal on its merits by issuing notice to respondent No.4, within a period of three months from today. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. No costs. 4. An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to the petitioner. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 29.9.2011 *awasthi*