IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1177 of 2010. Decided on: 24.06.2010. _____________________________________________ Tara Devi. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Arun Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved since she is not selected for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre Nalendi. According to the petitioner private respondent is not eligible for appointment since she does not belong to the feeding area. We find from the impugned order Annexure P-8 that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. has - 2 - considered this aspect and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on two grounds; (1) that the petitioner’s family separated from joint family only on 6.3.2006, i.e. after the cut off date, i.e. 1.1.2004; and (2) going by the report of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Paonta Sahib, the said private respondent belongs to the feeding area. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report relied upon by the Additional Deputy Commissioner has not been shown to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the documents produced by her in this case will establish that the private respondent does not belong to the feeding area. These facts are seriously disputed by the private respondent. 3. We have already taken a view that the separation of the family prior to 1.1.2004 is not necessarily essential for consideration of a candidate for appointment as Anganwari Worker since the separation is to be taken into consideration only for the purpose of computing the income of the family. So far as the report relied upon by the appellate authority is concerned, copy of the Sub Divisional Officer’s report is now handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the other materials are not dealt with by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, we are of the view that the matter is to be referred back to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur District at Nahan for reconsideration. We make it clear that we have not adverted to the contentions raised by the learned - 3 - counsel for the parties. The appellate authority may consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. It is made clear that both the parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing. Till orders are passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the existing arrangement will continue. 4. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of and so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 24, 2010. (sck/awasthi).