##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 880 of 2014 Decided on : 07.03.2026 Smt. Anita Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Negi, Advocate, vice Mr.

C.D. Negi, Advocate.

For the respondents : M Ad r.

vo c R a a te ja G t e n C e h ra a l u , h fo a r n , re s A po s n s d is e t n an ts t No.1 to 3.

Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent no. 4 and the impugned order i.e. Annexure P-11.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Respondent authorities to give appointment to the present petitioner who being first candidate in the waiting list.”

2. The petitioner herein is aggri.eved by the appointment of the private respondent against the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Cenftre Tangling, under I.C.D.S Project, Kalpa, District Kinnaur,o H.P. According to the petitioner, the interviews for the postt o f Anganwari worker in Anganwari Center Tangling, Districrt Kinnaur, were held on 13.03.2013, and the result thereof was declared on 30.03.2013. It is further the contention of the petitioner that besides her, other candidates had also appeared in the interview, including the private hrespondent. It is further her case that in terms of the interview gmarks which have been granted by the committee vide iAnnexure P-2, dated 30.03.2013, the private respondent has been offered appointment, which according to the petitioner is bad in law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-6 and submitted that after the issuance of Annexure P-2, a complaint was filed by the petitioner with the Deputy Commissioner concerned, mentioning therein, that she was not satisfied with the interview, but in terms of Annexure P-11, dated 15.05.2013, her co.mplaint was not considered in the right perspective and as the appointment that was given to the privateH respondent, has not been set aside, hence the petition.

4. On the other hand, leafrned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel for the private respondent argued that this writ petition assatiling the appointment of the private respondent is not umaintainable. They submitted that in terms of the policy foor appointment of Anganwari Workers, there is a provisiCon of preferring an appeal against the selection of a succ essful candidate within 15 days of the appointment of said candidate and in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 02.08.2019, passed in CWP No. 438 of 2017, titled as Praveena Devi Vs.

State of H.P. & Ors. and other connected matters, the appointment has to be mandatorily challenged by way of appeal and appeal also mandatorily has to be filed within 15 days of the appointment and beyond the period of 15 days, even an appeal is not maintainable. Learned Assistant Advocate General thus submitted that herein, as no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the appointment of .private respondent, said appointment has attained finality and the same could not have been challengedH by way of this writ petition. Learned Assistant Advocate General further submitted that a perusal of the so-called compflaint filed by the petitioner demonstrates that it was a cryptic complaint wherein nothing was mentioned as to thow the selection of the private respondent was buad and all that was mentioned in this letter, i.e. Annexureo P-6 was that the petitioner was not satisfied with the inCterview. Learned Assistant Advocate General thus subm itted that because there was no mention in Annexure P-6 as to what was the