IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9302 of 2013 th Decided on 07 March, 2026 Smt. Ganesha Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.

None for respondent No.5.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

1) “The orders dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-1), 25.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) and 14.11.2013 (Annexure P-3) may be ordered to be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari.

2) That the writ of mandamus may also be issued with a direction to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Center Bharsar, District Chamba.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in a process that was initiated by the Department to fill up the post of Aaganwari Worker in Aaganwari Centre Bharsar, District Chamba, the petitioner and the private respondent participated in the said process. The process was initiated in the year 2007. The petitioner was successful in the process and was offered appointment.

3. To cut the controversy short, the appointment of the petitioner was assailed by the private respondent, which culminated into passing of impugned order Annexure P-2 by the Appellate Authority, which is dated 25.10.2013.

4. In terms of this order, the appointment of the petitioner has been set aside by the Appellate Authority, inter alia, on the ground that in order to verify the veracity of the income certificate of the petitioner as well as the private respondent, the matter was referred to Tehsildar, who in terms of his order Annexure P-1 dated 05.02.2013, held that the income certificate of both the petitioner as well as the private respondent were prepared on false facts and cancelled the certificate.

5. Record demonstrates that this petition was admitted on 13.03.2014. Thereafter, process was issued for the service of respondent No.5 and in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2014, the respondent No.5 stood duly served, but none appeared on her behalf.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Tehsildar which stand impugned by way of this writ petition are not sustainable in the eyes of law. By referring to the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 05.02.2013 (Annexure P-1), learned Senior Counsel submitted that this order was cryptic, vague and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in terms of this order, the inco me certificate issued to the petitioner was set aside, but, there is not even a whisper as to what actually as per the authority was the annual family income of the petitioner so as to render her ineligible to be considered for appointment against the post of Aanganwari Worker. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that minimum that was required to be done by the Tehsildar was that he should have had returned a positive finding about the total family income of the petitioner by substantiating the same with material on record. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of this, the order passed by Tehsildar is bad in law. Learned Senior Counsel argued that this extremely important aspect of the matter stood ignored by the learned Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of their being any material on record that actually the family income of the petitioner was in excess, than, what was permitted by the policy, in terms whereof the petitioner was appointed as an Aaganwari Worker, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority was also bad and the same was liable to be set aside alo