IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 144 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.05.2009 Shanta Devi …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.R.M.Bisht and Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.Gs for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.B.M.Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla dated 2.1.2009 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Banola, Gram Panchayat Bratch, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. Her appointment was challenged by the respondent No.4 by filing an appeal under Section 12 of the Scheme for engagement of Anganwari 2 Worker/Helper. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla without even issuing notice to the present petitioner allowed the appeal on the ground that the income of the petitioner and her family was more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. The procedure followed by the Deputy Commissioner was totally against the canons of Natural Justice. He could not have decided the matter without issuing notice to the present petitioner. The petitioner initially filed a writ petition being CWP No.2140 of 2007 in this Court. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. The Divisional Commissioner Shimla has thereafter passed the impugned order. A perusal of the grounds of appeal and the order itself clearly shows that one of the main grounds raised by the petitioner was that her selection has been wrongly cancelled without affording her an opportunity. It was urged that she has been condemned unheard. The Divisional Commissioner did not decide this matter but decided the appeal on merits itself. It was the Deputy Commissioner before whom the first appeal was filed. The evidence, if any, had to be led before the Deputy Commissioner. It was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to have given an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner also erred in not deciding this issue and deciding the case on merit himself. If opportunity of 3 hearing had not been granted by the first Court, the proper course for the Divisional Commissioner was to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner. On this short ground alone we set-aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.11.2007 and also the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 2.1.2009. We may make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla on 15.6.2009 and the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla shall positively decide the appeal filed by respondent No.4 on or before 31st July, 2009. Till 31st July, 2009 status quo shall be maintained. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. May 8, 2009 ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV. Judge.