IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5718 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.4.2011 __________________________________________________ Bandna Devi …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ` ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, AAG for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms.Seema Sood, counsel for respondent No.5. _______________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 Meera Devi and set aside the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Kaswara, District Kangra. 2 The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondents initiated the process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Kaswara, District Kangra in the year 2007. The petitioner as well as the respondents No.4 and 5 applied for the said post. The petitioner was selected and her selection was challenged by both respondents No.4 and 5 by filing two separate appeals before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. The appeal filed by Meera Devi was allowed on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to village Kaswara and is a resident of village Palwana. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.3435 of 2010 before this Court which was decided on 2.7.2010 alongwith a number of other cases. The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide the case afresh. The appellate authority has again come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not belong to village Kaswara and hence could 3 not have been appointed. In this behalf, he has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner herself wherein it has been clearly stated that the applicant should belong to the feeding village/ward of the Anganwari area. Village Palwana is not a part of the feeding area for the Anganwari Centre, Kaswara and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been offered appointment. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is still working, she shall forthwith cease to work and the person who has been appointed in her place shall join latest by 30.4.2011. No order as to costs. April 19, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge