IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPSS No. 421 OF 2010 Sushila Devi ……………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …..Respondents. Present:- Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Sri Subhash Uapdhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.3.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexures 3 and 7 to the writ petition respectively). In short, the petitioner prays quashing of appointment of respondent no. 4 as Angan Bari Karyakatri. 3. The facts of the case are that initially, it was Ram Pyari (respondent no.4), who was given appointment as Angan Bari Karyakatri, but petitioner’s father-in-law made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal that respondent no. 4 could not have been appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri as she has secured less marks than the petitioner. On inquiry, it was found to be correct and therefore the appointment of Ram Pyari (respondent no. 4) as Angan Bari Karyakatri was cancelled and in her place, the petitioner was appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri. Consequently, respondent no. 4 who was so removed moved an application stating that certain documents filed by the petitioner are not proper. Consequently, vide order-dated 14.12.2009 passed by respondent no. 3, the petitioner was removed from the 2 post of Angan Bari Karya Katri. Against this order, on 18.12.2009 the petitioner moved a representation before the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1249 of 2009, in which vide order-dated 31.12.2009 of this Court, directions were given to the District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal to decide the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the order dated 31.12.2009, District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, vide its order dated 22.3.2010 rejected the claim of the petitioner. One of the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner was that the petitioner was not liable to be appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri, as it was clearly stated in the advertisement that those persons, who are members of the Gram Panchayat, will not be eligible for applying against the post of Gram Panchayats. At the relevant time, when the advertisement was published, the petitioner was member of Ward No. 5 of Village Panchayat Kholgarhwalla, hence, she was not eligible for the post. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was not eligible for being appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri. Since the petitioner was evidently not eligible for being appointed as Angan Bari Karyakatri, she was rightly removed from the post of Angan Bari Karyakatri. Therefore, there is no anomaly in the orders, which have been made against the petitioner. This writ petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 4. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 30.12.2010 Rathour