IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.Rev. No.75/2009 Decided on:11.5.2011 ___________________________________________________ Smt. Rameshwari Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate for respondent No.5. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 9.12.2009 rendered in CWP No. 4604/2009. 2. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj has vehemently argued that the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 before the District Magistrate, Solan was barred by limitation. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 According to him, the limitation prescribed for filing the appeal was 15 days. The interviews were held for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre, Takwana on 18.7.2007. Petitioner was selected. 3. The appointment of the petitioner was assailed by respondent No.5 before the learned District Magistrate, who assigned the same to Additional District Magistrate. The appeal was instituted by respondent No.5 on 22.8.2007. It was decided in favour of respondent No.5 Rita Devi on 29.6.2009. It is apparent from the contents of Annexure P-1, filed with CWP No. 4604/2009, that there was delay of only few days. It is settled law by now that the matter should be adjudicated on merits. The period prescribed in the scheme under which the appointments are made to the post of Anganwari Worker/Helper is not statutory. It merely lays down the guidelines. There could be number of reasons for not filing the appeal immediately and those could be the poverty, lack of knowledge of the selection of the candidate etc. Respondent No.5 and similarly situate persons belong to lower strata of the society, as such, their rights cannot be permitted to be lost only on the ground of technicality of limitation. The prescription of 15 days period of limitation even in the 3 non-statutory guidelines is harsh and oppressive. In normal circumstances, it ought to have been 90 days, with liberty reserved to the appellate authority to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown by the party concerned. 4. It is true that in this case, objection with regard to limitation was taken and no separate application was filed for the condonation of delay. The Court is of the considered view that the delay of few days will be deemed to have been condoned. The issue of limitation was also raised before the Divisional Commissioner in appeal No. 127/2009. However, in this appeal, the issue of limitation has not been touched vide decision dated 23.11.2009. The authorities below have considered all the issues on merits and not found the petitioner suitable for the post in question since her income exceeded the prescribed income of ` 12,000/- per annum. This was the only issue required to be adjudicated. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 23.11.2009 has directed the Child Development Project Officer, Arki to hold the de novo selection after taking necessary approval within three months. 5. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no error 4 apparent on the face of the record and accordingly the review petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner has worked from 2007 onwards, the experience gained by her, shall be taken into consideration while completing the de novo selection within a period of two months from today. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 11.5.2011 *awasthi*