IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1335 (SS) of 2011 Km. Madhubala …Petitioner Versus District Program Officer and others …Respondents Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel present for the petitioner Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner was selected as an “Anganbari Worker” for “Anganbari” Centre Village Ghandiyal Gaon (Ratkola), Block Pratapnagar, district Tehri Garwal. All the same, on a complaint made by respondent no. 2, no appointment letter is being issued to her. Appointment of “Anganbari Workers” are presently done primarily in accordance with Government order dated 24th February 2009, in which an Appellate Authority is already provided, which consists of the following: “1. Chief Development Officer-Chairman. 2. A person nominated by the District Magistrate, who must be at least Class-II Officer, and 3. District Programme Officer, who will be the member Secretary of this appellate body.” As such, the District Programme Officer, Tehri Garhwal/respondent no. 1 is hereby directed to refer the matter to the appellate authority, as referred above. The Appellate Authority after such reference shall hear the 2 grievance of the petitioner as well as of respondent no. 3 and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both of them shall take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of six weeks from the date the matter is referred to him. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 30.09.2011 VKG