JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the order dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmaur, Nahan, H.P., whereby appointment of petitioner as Anganwadi worker was quashed. 02. The undisputed factual position of the case is:-

2 (i) In terms of notification dated 11.04.2007, selection process was initiated for the post of Anganwadi Worker/Helper for Anganwadi Centre, Kadiyana, Tehsil Renuka Ji, ICDS, Block- Sangrah, District Sirmaur.

2(ii) Petitioner was selected as Anganwadi worker and appointment letter in this regard was issued on 03.08.2007. Respondent No.5 participated in the selection process and had stood 2nd in the merit list, after the petitioner, for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Presently respondent No.5 is working as Anganwadi Helper.

2(iii) A complaint against the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker was filed by respondent No.5, which was registered as Case No. 16/4 of 2007, before the Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmaur, Nahan, H.P. The complaint was in respect of ineligibility of petitioner for the post on the date of interview, primarily on grounds of her having married before the cut off date and therefore belonging to another area & the other grounds pertained to her higher family income & relations being in service.

2(iv) While the complaint was pending, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing No. CWP No. 564 of 2008, titled as Luxmi Devi Versus State of H.P., before this Court, seeking her transfer to a vacant post in another Anganwadi Centre. This request was directed to be considered, in accordance with law, vide order dated 11.04.2008 passed in the writ petition. In terms of this order, the petitioner's case for transfer was considered and she was accordingly transferred on her request to Anganwadi Centre at Aun Khadri, Teshil Nahan, H.P.

2(v) The complaint filed by respondent No. 5 against the selection of the petitioner was decided by the Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., vide impugned order dated 07.10.2013 (annexure P-12) holding therein that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved and that she was not eligible candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker, on the date of interview i.e. 2.8.2007, accordingly, her appointment was quashed and set aside. It is against this order, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4(i) Under the notification dated 11.04.2007, there exists a provision for appeal under Clause-12, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Such an order can be assailed within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order before the Divisional Commissioner.

4(ii) Respondent No.5 has taken a categoric stand in its reply with regard to maintainability of the writ petition without exhausting alternate remedy available against impugned order under that very policy in terms of which the petitioner was appointed. Respondent No.5 has also alleged that pendency of complaint against the selection & appointment of the petitioner was not disclosed by the petitioner in CWP No.564 of 2008. Respondent-State has also supported the impugned order on merits.

4(iii) No whisper has been made in the writ petition as to why the petitioner did not approach the appellate authority for redressal of her grievances.

4(iv). Admittedly, this recourse to alternate remedy, has not been availed by the petitioner. There is not even a whisper in the writ petition in respect of existence of this provision in the notification. The averments made in the writ petition that there is no alternate efficacy remedy available to her, is a factually incorrect statement.

5. The law in this regard is well settled, in case Ruma Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others,2013 (1) Shimla. LC 112, where similar question was raised. There also, a selection process undertaken in terms of notification date