IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2408 of 2008. Decided on: 03.03.2010. __________________________________________________________ Mrs. Santosh Kumari. … Petitioner. Versus The Director of Samaj and Mahila Kalyan & Others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate vice Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sunny Datwalia, Advocate vice Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Nehrati Bhagot, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. Mr. Archana Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the action of respondents No.1 to 3 to select respondent No.4 as Anganwari Worker is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She then contended that the petitioner is more meritorious vis-à-vis respondent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - No.4. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sunny Datwalia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents have strenuously argued that the name of respondent No.4 was recommended by the duly constituted selection committee. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Interview for the post in question was held on 3rd December, 1994. Petitioner and respondent No.4 have participated in the selection process. Petitioner has secured 18 marks and respondent No.4 has secured 19 marks. Petitioner as well as respondent No.4, at the time of interview, have produced certificate to the effect that no member from their family was in government service. Ms. Archana Dutt has also argued that the petitioner should have been given preference since she belongs to I.R.D.P. family. Petitioner has not placed any material on record which suggests that preference was to be given to the candidate belonging to I.R.D.P. category. The suitability of the petitioner and respondent No.4 has been adjudged by a duly constituted committee. There is no averment in the petition that the Committee was not validly constituted. Once the suitability has been adjudged by the duly constituted committee, this Court will not sit in appeal over the same. Accordingly, in view of observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 03, 2010. (sck).