2025:UHC:10189 n ah eed par v een SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 2254 of 2019 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. By the instant petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: - (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record of the case and to quash the part of the order dated 02.08.2019 (Annexure No.1) passed by the com mittee consisting of respondent nos. 2 to 6 deciding objections in regard to selection of Aanganwadi Worker for the year 2018-19 whereby after the rejection of nam e of respondent no.7 Smt. Ritu Sharma, recommendation for fresh selection has been made, instead of appointing the petitioner. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 to 6 to select and appoint the petitioner as Aanganwadi Worker for Matawala Bagh Center. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as Aanganwadi Assistant and thereafter, she participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of “Aanganwadi worker”, and she got selected but subsequently her selection was put on hold on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in a locality namely “Matawala Bagh”. 4. It is argued that one of the condition for appointment was that the incumbent should be permanent resident of village, Majre (extension), Tok, Ward. By Annexure-1 which is the minutes of appellate committee dated 02.08.2019, the selection of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled since on an inquiry it was found that the petitioner is not residing at “Matawala Bagh” and as such recommendation was made for cancelling her selection, and to proceed with fresh selection in respect of the vacancy in which the petitioner was declared to be selected. 2025:UHC:10189 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfils all the eligibility as required under the policy and furthermore she is permanent resident of ward namely “ Purani Tehsil”, in support of which her permanent resident certificate issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee dated 02.08.2018, which is Annexure-3 is also place on record. 6. Apart from this, the petitioner also collected the information under the RTI Act to verify that Matawala Bagh falls in which ward and in response to this, the RTI information was supplied on 02.08.2019 whereby it was informed that “Matawala Bagh” falls in “Mohalla Purani Tehsil” and page 63 of the paper book is the list of ward issued by Nagar Nigam in which at Serial No.19 Purani Tehsil is shown to be as “Ward”. 7. By showing these documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly “Matawala Bagh” “falls in ward” “Purani Tehsil” and furthermore, the petitioner was given permanent resident certificate in respect of the said ward and therefore, the selection of petitioner was wrongly cancelled by the respondents which is based upon an inquiry as reflected from Annexure -1. He submits that there is no any denial in the counter affidavit with regard to the issuance of permanent resident certificate dated 02.08.2018. He also submits that the inquiry report is also silent on the permanent resident certificate. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Brief Holder submits that on an inquiry it was found that the petitioner is generally not residing in “Matawala Bagh”, however, he has not disputed that “Matawala Bagh” is the part of ward “Purani Tehsil”. Apart from this, the counter affidavit of the respondents is also silent on the permanent resident certificate issued in favour of the petitioner from which it is clearly evident that the 2025:UHC:10189 petitioner is the resident of ward “Purani Tehsil”. 9. Apart from this, clause-3 of the Government Order dated 24.02.2009 provides eligibility conditions as well as the procedure for appointment of Aaganbari Karyakarti. Since the petitioner is the permanent resident of ward Purani Tehsil, which is evident from her permanent resident certificate, therefore, it is clear that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the post of “Anganwadi worker” is illegal. 10. As per order sheet the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 by which the selection of the petitioner was cancelled was stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 25.09.2019, and the respondents were directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner. 11. In view of the discussion and observation as above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.08.2019 and all the consequential orders are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to give the appointment to the petitioner positively within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 1 7 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Nahid 2025:UHC:10189