IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 62 of 2009. Decided on 25th November, 2010. Lajja Devi. ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioner: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “(ii) Writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 3.10.2008 passed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and the order Annexure P-2 dated 16.10.2008 passed by Learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and for quashing the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi worker. (iii) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to give the appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Kutehchi, to the petitioner.” The issue was considered by this Court leading to a judgment in Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors, reported in 2 2010 (2) Him.L.R. (DB) 964. At para 19 of the judgment, it has been held as follows: “19. Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.” It is seen from the records that the appeal filed by the petitioner is beyond time. Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal though ultimately the same was rejected. If that be so, Annexure P-1, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has become final. True, that order is under challenge before this Court, but it is seen that even if the private respondent is ousted, the petitioner is not the beneficiary. In that view of the matter, there is no point in issuing a futile writ. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 25th November, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge 3