IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 2121 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.10.2007 Satya Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents 4 & 5: Mr. Arun Kumar vice Mr. R.R.Rahi, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the following amongst other reliefs: (i) Directing the respondents not to consider the case of respondent No.6, Smt.Bimla Devi, w/o Shri Kalyan Singh for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Dhumkhar for the reason that she is not a resident of the said Gram Panchayat and instead is the resident of Gram Panchayat Ghundhui, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour. If her appointment for the said post has already been made, then the same may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the name of the applicant may be ordered to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Dhumkhar and she be ordered to be appointed with all consequential benefits. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. (iii) Directing the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the Parivar Register as it was existing prior to its deletion with all consequential benefits. As far as reliefs 1 and 2 are concerned, it has been pointed out to us by the learned Deputy Advocate General that appointment of Smt. Bimla Devi was stayed by the learned H.P.State Administrative Tribunal in some other original application. Thereafter, the State adopted a new policy for appointment of Anganwadi worker and invited fresh applications. According to the State, the petitioner did not apply when fresh applications were invited and some other lady has now been appointed as Anganwadi worker. As far as respondent No.6 is concerned, the petition does not survive against her since she has not been appointed as Anganwadi worker. Shri Avinash Jaryal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that injustice has been caused to the petitioner because the name of her husband Ram Lal has been removed from the Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat Loja Manal without issuing any notice to him. The order of the Gram Panchayat is based on orders passed by the SDM and the Panchayat Inspector. These orders are not under challenge before us. In any event, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of challenging the said orders before the appropriate authority under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act. We, therefore, dispose of the petition, with liberty reserved to the petitioner and/or her husband to challenge the removal of the name of the husband from the Register of the Gram Panchayat Loja Manal by filing appropriate proceedings under the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act. In case, these proceedings are filed on or before 15th December, 2008, they shall be treated to be within limitation and shall be disposed of latest by 31st March, 2009. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. October 29, 2008 ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™