IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4066 of 2019 Decided on 03rd June, 2026 Uploaded on:-___________ Sulakshna 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. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That (Annexure P-5) order dated 22.11.2019 may be quashed and set aside.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in the year 2007, the petitioner was appointed as an Aganwari Worker at Aganwari Centre Fatehpur. The petitioner was married at the time when she was appointed as an Anganwari Worker, as was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2011, the husband of the petitioner constructed a house in Village Saach. As a post of Aganwari Worker was lying vacant in village Saach, the petitioner made a request for her adjustment there, on the ground that her family had recently shifted to Village Saach. The request of the petitioner was entertained and in terms of Annexure P-11, she was ordered to be transferred to Aganwari Centre Saach. Said transfer order was assailed by one Sh. Dhani Ram by way of filing of a complaint. In terms of impugned Annexure P-5, i.e. office order dated 22.11.2019, on the basis of said complaint, the transfer order of the petitioner was cancelled and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because, at the time when the transfer of the petitioner was ordered, she had not concealed any facts and it was a conscious decision taken by the Department to adjust her at a vacant station. Accordingly, he argued that as the impugned order has been passed without appreciating this fact, the present petition be allowed and impugned order Annexure P-5 be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Aganwari Worker in Aganwari Centre Fatehpur in the year 2007, which was the feeder village of the relevant Aganwari Centre. Later on, she sought her transfer to Aganwari Centre Saach on the ground that she had constructed a house in Gram Panchayat Saach and was residing there alongwith her family. It was also averred that the distance between Aganwari Centre Saach from her residence was only 500 meters and the distance between Aganwari Centre Fatehpur, which was located in Gram Panchayat Singi was 6 kilometers. Based on the petitioner’s application, transfer order Annexure P-1 was passed, as the authorities bonafidely believed that the documents supplied by the petitioner were depicting the true picture. Later on one Sh. Dhani Ram filed a complaint against the transfer of the petitioner. The complaint was forwarded by the District Programme Officer to respondent No.4 for the purpose of an Inquiry. On the basis of the inquiry conducted by Child Development Project Officer Chamba, the transfer of the petitioner was cancelled, as marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 10.03.2001 in village Dhaweli (Fatehpur) and the transfer of the petitioner was ordered on 02.07.2019. In terms of the Pariwar Register of Gram Panchayat Saach, family of the petitioner was stated to have separated on 13.11.2019 and before said date, the family of the petitioner was reflected as part of Village Fatehpur, which demonstrated that the information which was supplied by the petitioner was incorrect. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in light of the fact that the transfer of the petitioner was a result of misrepresention by the petitioner and further as this transfer was not in terms of the notification dated 11.04.2007, which governs the engagement including transfer of Aganwari Workers, the transfer order was correctly cancelled by the Authority. 5. Though, no rejoinder to the reply has been filed, but learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon Clause-4 (C) of the notification dated 11.04.2007, Annexure R-1 submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was effected under this particular Clause. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. Firstly, this Court would like to observe that this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Record demonstrates that petitioner’s transfer order was cancelled on the basis of a complaint filed by one Dhani Ram. Incidentally, this Dhani Ram has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition despite the fact that he was a necessary party, because, the transfer order admittedly was cancelled based on his complaint. Thus, this petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone, that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. 8. Besides this, a perusal of notification dated 11.04.2007, Annexure R-1, the scheme, which deals with the engagement of the Aganwari Workers, demonstrates that Part-II deals with Terms and Conditions of Services of such workers. Clause-4 of part-II deals with transfer/adjustment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers and read as under:- a) “Under ICDS programme there is no provision of transfer of Anganwadi Worker/Helpers, as these are honorary workers. However, in the case of marriage of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper, if at the place of her marriage, vacancy of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper exists she would be transferred or adjusted in that Anganwdi Centre. b) Request for adjustment/transfer can be made to Child Development Project Officer on plain papers with certificate of marriage. c) Child Development Project Officer will be competent authority to order transfer/adjustment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers within the project and outside project but within the District Programme Officer will be competent authority to do so. Outside district transfer/adjustment will be done with the approval of Director on the recommendation of the District Programme Officer of the both Districts.” 9. In terms of said Clause, under ICDS programme there is no provision of transfer of Anganwadi Worker/Helpers, however, in case of marriage of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper, if at the place of her marriage, vacancy of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper exists, she would be transferred or adjusted in that Anganwdi Centre. This Clause further provides that request for adjustment/transfer can be made to Child Development Project Officer on plain papers with certificate of marriage and Child Development Project Officer will be the competent authority to order transfer/adjustment of such Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. Thus, in terms of Clause-4, the only eventuality under which an Anganwadi Worker can be transferred is that if after her appointment, she solemnized her marriage and a vacancy is available at a centre in the place of her marriage. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was covered under Clause-4(C) is totally misconceived. Clauses-4 (A) to 4 (C) have to be read harmoniously and whereas the circumstances under which a transfer is permissible are mentioned under Clause-4 (A), Clause (B) and (C) thereof only spell out as to how a request has to be made and who will be the competent authority to order such transfer. 11. Herein, as the petitioner was already married when she was appointed as an Aganwadi Worker, she was not entitled to seek transfer on the basis of the contents of Clause-4 (supra). The impugned transfer order in fact was per se bad as the same was passed by the Authority in violation of the contents of Clause-4, meaning thereby that the order of transfer was passed by the Authority without having any authority to pass the said order. 12. Besides this, it is also evident from the reply filed by the State, which has not been rebutted by way of any rejoinder, though, the reply was filed as far back as in the month of September, 2020, that the petitioner had obtained the transfer by not portraying the correct facts before the Authority. 13. Therefore, in light of the above facts, as obviously the act of the respondents of cancelling the transfer order of the petitioner cannot be faulted with, this petition is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 03, 2026 (Vinod)