IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11371 of 2011H. Decided on: 22.12.2011. Smt. Sheela Devi wife of Shri Joinder Singh, resident of village Lengari, Post Office Balh Churani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Social Justice and Empowerment) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla – 1. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 3. Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. 4. Child Development Project Officer, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 5. Smt. Piar Kali wife of Shri Basant Singh, resident of village Kuh, Post Office Kuh-Manjhwar, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. …. Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. No. For the petitioner : Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Lengari before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. No. - 2 - 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, before the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur was that the income of respondent No.5 was more than rupees twelve thousand and she was residing in joint family even after 1.1.2004. The Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur allowed the appeal on 18.12.2008. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He dismissed the same on 19.3.2009. Respondent No.5 assailed the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner by filling CWP No.943 of 2009 in this Court. The same was disposed of on 17.5.2010. Thereafter the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur disposed of the appeal on 18.1.2011. He set aside the appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Helper. According to him, the income of respondent No.5 was more than twelve thousand since she was residing in a joint family after her marriage. He has also taken note of the report submitted by the Inspector of the office of Block Development Officer, Ghumarwin with regard to the status of respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. He allowed the same on 5.7.2011. 3. We have gone through order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi minutely. The Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur has directed the S.D.O., Ghumarwin to look into the matter whether respondent No.5 was living in a joint family or not. The S.D.O., Ghumarwin deputed the Inspector from - 3 - the office of Block Development Officer, Ghumarwin to look into the status of respondent No.5. He submitted the report. According to this report, respondent No.5 was living in joint family. There is no contemporaneous material on record to show that respondent No.5 was associated with the inquiry conducted by the Inspector of the office of Block Development Officer, Ghumarwin pursuant to the directions issued by the S.D.O., Ghumarwin. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has also considered the affidavit executed by respondent No.5, dated 7.8.1995. Consequently, there is neither any illegality nor procedural irregularity in order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Moreover, the Divisional Commissioner has only remanded the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. However, in the interest of justice, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur is directed to decide the appeal within a period of four months from today. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 22, 2011. (sck).