CWP No. 1150/2011 01.09.2011 Present: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. Aman Deep Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.3 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “To quash the impugned order dated 10-01-2011 Annexure P-3 as passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala. The termination of the services of the petitioner, if any, as consequence thereof may also be quashed and consequent action if any, taken by the respondents may also be declared void in the interest of justice equity, and fair play. The costs of this petition may kindly also be allowed.” 2. Annexure P-3 is the impugned order whereby petitioner’s appointment as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Ghalora has been set aside. 3. Selection took place on 26.3.2008. Petitioner was given appointment, which was challenged by private respondent by way of appeal. However, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same in terms of order dated 26.5.2010. Aggrieved thereof private respondent filed CWP No.3708/2010 and vide judgment dated 26.7.2010, this court directed the matter to be considered fresh by quashing the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Now in terms of the impugned order, Addl. District Magistrate, Kangra has held that petitioner did not belong to the feeder village of the concerned Anganwari Centre. As such, she being ineligible, her appointment being illegal is set aside. 4. Having gone through the record, I do not see any illegality or perversity with the same. For more than three and half years, petitioner has enjoyed the benefits of the office without any legal right. 5. Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the summons issued by the authorities dated 21.10.2008. As such, he wants this Court to “presume” that the original appeal filed was beyond period of limitation. To say the least, this plea cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage in these proceedings. No such plea was ever taken before the authorities below. 6. It was also urged that name of husband of respondent No.3 has been wrongly mentioned by her in the affidavit to be “Sanjay Kumar” whereas documents submitted by her records the same to be “Sanjeev Kumar”. What is being urged is that “perhaps” respondent No.3 has impersonated herself to be wife of Sanjeev Kumar. This stand being preposterous, was in fact never taken before the authorities below and cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage. Identity of respondent No.3 and her husband was never in dispute. Even here, it is not disputed. Name of Sanjeev Kumar may have been wrongly recorded in the documents placed on record by respondent No.3. 7. It is further urged that the Addl. District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Contention needs to be rejected for the reason that power to decide the same has now been delegated by the State which order stands upheld by this Court in CWP No. 2289/2010 titled as Sudesh Pankaj v. State of H.P. & Anr. decided on 18.5.2010. As such, present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending application, if any. Interim order vacated. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 01, 2011 (rana)