_____________________________________________________ Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1320 of 2007. Dated of Decision: August 7, 2009. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Smt. Sangeeta Devi. ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General & Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta,J (oral) : By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the appointment and selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kishan Kot (2) be set-aside and the petitioner be appointed in her place. The undisputed facts are that respondent No.4 was selected as Anganwari Worker in the aforesaid Anganwari - 2 - Centre. The petitioner made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur, alleging that the family income of respondent No.4 was above the prescribed limit. It is not disputed that respondent No.4 has resigned from the job and the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Kishan Kot (2) is lying vacant. The petitioner also moved an application being CMP No.2361 of 2009, praying that since the post in question is lying vacant, the petitioner may be permitted to join at the Anganwari Centre. In reply to this application, the State has admitted that the respondent No.4 has resigned and the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Kishan Kot (2) is lying vacant. It has further been admitted that the petitioner is figuring at serial No.1 of the result-sheet of the interview after respondent No.4. The only ground given for not issuing the appointment letter is that since the matter was subjudice, therefore, the appointment letter was not issued. We fail to understand as to what prevented the State to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the respondent-State has clearly admitted that the petitioner is at serial No.1 of the waiting list after the respondent No.4 and the fact that the respondent No.4 has resigned and left the job, the - 3 - State is directed to issue the appointment letter to the person next to respondent No.4 in the selection list. Keeping in view the interest of the children, we direct that the order in question shall be passed by the respondents-State within 15 days from today. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) Judge (Surinder Singh) Judge August 7, 2009. (Pds)