IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9345 of 2013 Decided on 02nd March, 2026 Sita Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, with M/s Vivek Sharma and Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That the respondents may kindly be directed to quash and set aside order dated 12.11.2013 i.e. Annexure P-7. ii) That the present petitioner may be allowed to continue her services at her present place.” 2 2. The petitioner has assailed order dated 12.11.2013, Annexure P-7, which has been passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P., in terms whereof, the appointment of the petitioner as Aaganwari Worker was held to be bad on the ground that the income of the petitioner was found to be over and above the maximum annual family income provided in the policy to be eligible for being appointed as an Aaganwari Worker. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents appended therewith, including the impugner order. 4. Record demonstrates that in a process that was initiated by the Department in the year 2007 for appointment of an Aaganwari Worker at Aaganwari Centre Sari, the petitioner was found successful. She was also offered appointment. Her appointment was challenged by the private respondent, whose appeal was allowed at the first instance. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order passed First Authority was allowed. The record further demonstrates that 3 there was lot of litigation between the parties regarding the veracity of the income certificate as also the fact as to whether the village of the petitioner was a feeder village of the Aaganwari Centre concerned or not. 5. Be that as it may, record of this case demonstrates that on 03.12.2013, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and the operation of the impugned order was stayed. In the light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner is continuing to serve even today on the strength of this order, then, no purpose is going to be served by ordering the discontinuation of the petitioner and on the ground of equity, respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue and the impugned order shall be deemed to have been set aside by this Court. However, if after the passing of the impugned order and even after the passing of the interim order by this Court, the petitioner has not continued to serve on the said post, then, consequences in terms of the impugned order to ensue and the respondents shall be liberty to fill up the post of Aaganwari Worker in accordance with law, if not already done. 4 6. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 02, 2026 (Vinod)