IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3939 of 2010. Decided on: 25th October, 2010. Savita Devi. .….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …. .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed within the following prayer: “(A) That this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the writ in nature of certiorari may be issued and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, dated 22.5.2010 contained in Annexure P-2, whereby he has affirmed the order passed by the ADM Chamba may be quashed and set aside.” 2. On an appeal filed by the 6th respondent against the appointment of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment since she had not attained the age of 21 years. That order was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner. Hence, this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 6th respondent was not even an applicant and 2 hence a stranger was not entitled to make an appeal. Still further it is contended that the appeal was not filed within time. It is submitted on these two counts, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in CWP No.1096 of 2010 titled as Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others passed on 17th May, 2010. 3. As far as the age is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner had crossed the age of 20 but not attained the age of 21 years. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the power of relaxation is with the Director Social Justice and Empowerment. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, we are of the view that the matter requires consideration whether the petitioner is eligible for relaxation and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to look into the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 6th respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till the orders are passed as above and communicated to the petitioner, the interim order passed by this Court will continue. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 25th October, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge. 3