The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for the appointment of Anganwadi Helpers and the procedural formalities for maintaining and revising the parivar register, emphasizing the requirement for candidates to belong to a family legally separated before 01.01.2004.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued by quashing impugned order dated 16.06.2009, Annexure P-1 passed by the Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. and order dated 23.06.2010, Annexure P-2, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, Kangra at Dharamshala, being wrong and illegal.

(ii) That the respondents may further be directed to allow the petitioner to work as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Chhamb.

(iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout.

(v) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Chhamb, District Kangra, H.P. in the year 2008. Her appointment was challenged by way of an appeal by respondent No. 5 before respondent No. 3. The orders impugned in the present writ petition are order dated 16.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 2.

3. Vide impugned order dated 16.06.2009 passed by respondent No. 3, the appeal filed by private respondent Smt. Rekha Devi was allowed and the selection of petitioner has been set aside being against the Rules. Respondent No. 3 has set aside the selection of petitioner on the ground that as per statement of Panchayat Sahayak and as per the records, the family of the petitioner was entered in the parivar register Part-I at Sr. No. 60/1 of page No. 50 on 01.04.2007 and as such, at the time of selection, the petitioner did not belong to the Panchayat/feeding area of the Anganwadi Centre for the selection which was against the guidelines issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, dated 11th April, 2007. This order was challenged by the present petitioner by way of an appeal before respondent No. 2, which appeal has been dismissed on 23.06.2010 vide Annexure P-2. The appellate authority has held that the present petitioner’s family shifted from their root family which is resident of Gram Panchayat, Rehlu and was entered as a separate family under Gram Panchayat, Harchakian on 01.04.2007. It further held that it was clear that family of the present petitioner was included in Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat, Harchakian after 01.04.2004, which is cut off date as prescribed in the Scheme/guidelines pertaining to the selection of Anganwadi Worker and accordingly her selection as Helper in Anganwadi Centre, Chhamb was in violation of the said Scheme. Accordingly, the appellate authority held that the present petitioner was not resident of feeding area where Anganwadi Centre, Chhamb falls. Accordingly, it upheld the order passed by respondent No. 3 and dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said two orders, the petitioner has filed this petition.

4. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law because they are result of complete mis-reading of the Scheme/guidelines framed by the respondent-State for appointing Anganwadi workers. According to her, the cut off date of 01.01.2004 is relevant only for the purpose of determining the income of family and nothing more than that. Therefore, according to her, the conclusions arrived at by respondents No. 2 and 3 that the petitioner was not belonging to the feeder area of the Anganwadi Centre concerned was incorrect and perverse. According to her, her family was registered in the parivar register maintained by the concerned Panchayat before t