IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 202 of 2010. Decided on : August 2, 2010. Shyama …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner Mr. Ajay K. Dhiman, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For respondent No. 4 Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker, after having been selected by Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No. 4 on the ground that while awarding marks under various headings, no marks had been awarded to her (respondent No. 4) for experience. Matter was inquired into by Sub Divisional Magistrate, under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner. Inquiry showed that respondent No. 4 had submitted some experience certificates, which had not been taken into consideration and no marks had been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - awarded to her for experience. On the basis of that report, Deputy Commissioner set aside the appointment of the petitioner vide impugned order, dated 6.10.2009, copy Annexure P-4. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. 2. According to the petitioner, certificates submitted by the respondent No. 4 with regard to her training, are bogus because, she claims to have undergone more than one training at the same time, at different institutions, which is not possible and that a criminal case has also been registered against her for using these bogus certificates. 3. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Committee, headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, respondent No. 2 herein, to consider the entire matter afresh, taking into account the plea of respondent No. 4 that she has experience, for which, she is entitled to be awarded appropriate marks, and also the plea of the petitioner that certificates regarding training, as also experience, submitted by respondent No. 4, are bogus. Respondent No. 2 shall convene the meeting immediately, on production of a copy of this order to him, and the Committee shall select one out of the two candidates, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 4, within 15 days of the meeting. The entire process of convening the meeting and the final decision shall be completed within one month. In - 3 - case the parties make a representation for personal hearing, the Committee shall afford to them opportunity of being heard in person. Till the decision is taken by the Committee, in terms of this order, status quo shall be maintained. Copy dasti. August 2, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.