CWP No. 6701/2010 12.05.2011 Present: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents-state Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.4 Smt. Asha Devi (petitioner) has assailed the appointment of Smt. Renu Bala as an Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Khatrehar. In terms of the impugned order, the appeal stands dismissed only on the ground of limitation prescribed under I.C.D.S. Scheme notified vide Annexure P-1, relevant extract of which reads as under:- “12. Appeal against selection: Any candidate aggrieved by any order passed by the Child Development Project Officer appointing Anganwadi Worker and Helper may file an appeal to Deputy Commissioner within a period of 15 days of the declaration of the result who will decide the case within 15 days. Appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner may be made to the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days of the order of the DC. This will be the final appeal.” 2. Under the revised scheme (Annexure P-2), there is no limit prescribed and the relevant clause reads as under:- ““12. Appeal against selection: 1st and final appeal by any aggrieved candidate can be made to the concerned Deputy Commissioner who will decide the same within 15 days from the date of filing appeal.” 3. Perusal of the limitation clause evidently makes it clear that appeal can be filed within 15 days from the date of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. It is in two parts. No restrictive interpretation can be given to the words “declaration of the result”. Process for selection and appointment concludes with the issuance of the appointment order by the appropriate authority. In the instant case, the appointment letter dated 08.08.2007 pertaining to Smt. Renu Bala was issued on 14.08.2007 on which date she joined. The appeal was presented on 25.08.2007. Consequently, challenge to the appeal is within the period of limitation. In the impugned order, the appropriate authority erred in coming to the conclusion that the appeal being barred by period of limitation was to be rejected. 4. Liberal interpretation is required to be given to the provisions of the Scheme considering that the challenge is to be made by the people in remote area and due to long distance may not have any access to the information otherwise notified in the appropriate office. 5. Mr. Goel has invited my attention to the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Surekha Kumari vs. The State of H. P. & ors., CWP No. 282 of 2009 and Renu Bala vs. The State of H. P. & ors., CWP No. 3242 of 2010, copies of which are taken on record. 6. Consequently the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal afresh. Considering that the matter is pending consideration since the year 2007, an endeavour shall be made by the authority to decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. While taking such decision, the authority shall take into account the directions issued in the judgments relied upon by Mr. Goel. The point of limitation stands conclusively decided. 7. Parties agree and undertake to appear before the authority on 13.06.2011. Present arrangement at the Centre shall continue till the decision of the appeal. 8. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 12, 2011 (rana)