IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3214/2009 Reserved on: 2.7.2010 Decided on:29.7. 2010. Smt. Santosh Kumari. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Per Justice Rajiv Sharma Petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi in case No.537/2008 dated 21.10.2008. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.3 commenced the process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in sequel to scheme/guidelines framed by the State on honorarium basis under the Integrated Child Development Scheme run by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2 Petitioner alongwith respondent No.5 submitted his application for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Ropri. Petitioner and respondent No.5 were interviewed by the duly constituted Selection Committee on 27.7.2007. However, the Section Committee has recommended the name of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Worker to be appointed at Anganwari Centre, Ropri. Petitioner assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur allowed the appeal on 26.4.2008. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, who allowed the same and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 21.10.2008. Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma has strenuously argued that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 21.10.2008 is not sustainable. She has further contended that the Divisional Commissioner has completely misread Annexure P-4 issued by Smt. Leela Devi, Anganwari Worker, Mair on 24.3.2008. She lastly contended that respondent No.5 never belonged to the feeding village of Anganwari Centre, Ropari. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Dinesh Thakur have supported the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 21.10.2008. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The process was commenced by respondent No.3. Petitioner and respondent No.5 were interviewed for the post of Anganwari 3 Worker on 27.7.2007. Name of respondent No.5 was recommended by the Selection Committee. Petitioner has assailed her appointment by way of appeal bearing No. AWW Case No. 45/2007. She had primarily contended before the Deputy Commissioner that respondent No.5 was not resident of feeding area of the Anganwari Centre. According to her, she was resident of Makrana. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal on the basis of the certificate issued by C.D.P.O. to the effect that respondent No.5 belonged to village Makrana, which is not the feeding village of Anganwari Centre, Ropari as determined by the Department. It is not in dispute that Anganwari Centres are selected on the basis of the survey conducted by the C.D.P.O. of the concerned block. However, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 21.10.2008. According to him, Smt. Leela Devi, Anganwari Worker, Mair has reported that the portion of village Mair (Makrana) has been added to the Anganwari Centre, Ropri. He has completely misread Annexure P-4 whereby Smt. Leela Devi, Anganwari Worker, Mair has categorically stated that village Makrana has been added with Anganwari Centre, Mair and accordingly, Meena Devi did not fall in the area of Anganwari Centre, Ropari. The Divisional Commissioner should have read Annexure P-4 with great care and caution. Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-6. A bare perusal of Annexure P-6 reveals that village Nataina has been added with Anganwari Centre, Ropari and village Makrana with Anganwari Centre, Mair. In fact, the certificate 4 issued by Smt. Leela Devi as per Annexure P-4 is also to this effect. The Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Mair has also issued Annexure P-7 dated 12.2.2008 to the effect that respondent No.5 belongs to Ward No.5 of village Makrana. Respondents No. 1 and 3 to 4 have also filed reply. The sum and substance of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 3 to 4 is that the decision of the Divisional Commissioner is correct and the same is based on certificate issued by Leela Devi. This is factually incorrect, as discussed hereinabove. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that village of respondent No.5 was never included in the area of Anganwari Centre, Ropari. However, village Mair, as per Annexure P-6, was added with Makrana. The Divisional Commissioner has completely misread Annexure P-4 leading to grave miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 21.10.2008 is quashed and set aside and the order of Deputy Commissioner Annexure P-3 is restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 29.7. 2010. *awasthi*