2025:UHC:7957 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1421/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Harendra Belwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Davesh Upreti, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 4. Petitioner was selected for appointment as Anganwadi Sahayika in Angnwadi Centre Shalakwar, Block & Tehsil Okhalkanda, District Nainital. As per applicable policy, objections were invited against the result and respondent no. 6 filed objection contending that she is resident of the same revenue village, yet her application was rejected on the ground that she is not a resident of said village. Along with her objection, respondent no. 6 submitted evidence to show that she was born and brought up in the same revenue village i.e. Shalakwar. 5. Report was also called from Tehsildar, who also endorsed the stand taken by respondent no. 6 that she belongs to same village. Appellate Authority cancelled the selection of petitioner and recommended respondent no. 6 for appointment due to her higher quality point marks. Thus, feeling aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision taken by Appellate Authority whereby the respondent no. 6 has been declared as selected on the post of Aganbari Assistant in Shalakwar 2025:UHC:7957 (Dalkanya-02) Block Okhalkanda, District Nainital, showing in the website of the respondent department (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on the post of Aganbari Assistant in Shalakwar (Dalkanya-02) Block Okhalkanda, District Nainital, and pay her regular salary. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no. 6 had made her application after the deadline indicated in the advertisement. However, there is no material on record to establish that application made by respondent no. 6 was beyond time. Admittedly, respondent no. 6 scored more quality point marks than the petitioner. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as claim of respondent no. 6 for appointment was wrongly rejected. She was resident of same village in which appointment has to be made, however, her candidature was rejected by holding that she belongs to some other village. 8. Since the decision taken by Appellate Authority is based on the report submitted by Tehsildar and the documents submitted by respondent no. 6 in support of her contention that she belongs to the same village, therefore, decision taken by Appellate Authority cannot be faulted. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.09 21:32:35 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7957