IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 180 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.5.2011 Reena Devi …..Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner & Ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Nemo. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has pointed out that in terms of the scheme/guidelines for the engagement of Anganwari Workers especially clause (12) thereof only one appeal lies against the selection to the Deputy Commissioner and no second appeal is provided to the Divisional Commissioner. It has been pointed out by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that despite this objection having been specifically raised, the Divisional Commissioner has proceeded with the matter and now the case is listed on 13th June, 2011. Prima facie, I am of the view that in terms of clause (12) no second appeal is 2 maintainable. However, since the case is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, it would be appropriate that he should decide the matter. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on 13th June, 2011 itself and while disposing of the matter, he shall first decide whether the appeal filed before him is maintainable or not. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Copy dasti. May 26, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (vt) Judge