IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 689 of 2011. Decided on: 23rd February, 2011. Tara Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-9, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour. The issue pertains to the appointment of Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Ashyari. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by this court in the judgment, dated 17.5.2010 in CWP No. 1550 of 2010. As far as the selection is concerned, both the authorities have found that the private respondent is more meritorious candidate. However, she was not appointed on the only ground that there was no separation of the family. This court has already held that separation as on 1.1.2004 is not a pre- condition for a person to become eligible to compete for selection as Anganwari worker. According to the petitioner, her whole family had migrated. There is no quarrel on that 2 submission. Both, the petitioner and the private respondent by way of migration and separation respectively had become eligible to compete for the selection. Between the two eligible candidates, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly found on verification of records that the private respondent had secured 6.98 marks, whereas the petitioner had only 3.4 marks. In that view of the matter, between the two eligible candidates, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the more meritorious candidate should be appointed. We do not find any infirmity in the order thus passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order originally passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour. The authorities have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects. No irrelevant consideration has influenced the decision. The petition is hence dismissed. However, we make it clear that in case any vacancy arising at the centre, the petitioner will be preferentially considered in view of her experience. 2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd February, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge. 3