2025:UHC:10183 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 W PSS/ 1 8 1 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner has challenged decision taken by District Level Appellate Committee to cancel the selection for appointment Anganwari Karyakatri, Anganwari Centre Dayalpur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner was selected in the selection held pursuant to the earlier advertisement, therefore, she has suffered legal injury in the matter. 5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that Anganwari Centre Dayalpur- I comes under Revenue Village Dayalpur; however, in the advertisement, the said Anganwari Centre was mentioned as ‘situate in Village Khanpur’. He submits that as per the Government Policy, candidates belonging to a particular Revenue Village alone are eligible for appointment as Anganwari Karyakatri in a Anganwari Centre situate in that village; he submits that due to mistake in the advertisement many eligible candidates, resident of Village Dayalpur, could not apply for the post in question; however, when they made complaint to the Competent Authority, then this mistake was rectified and it was decided at the highest level to cancel the selection process. 2025:UHC:10183 6. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Competent Authority to cancel the selection, as due to mistake, ‘Anganwari Centre Dayalpur-I’ was shown as situate within ‘Village Khanpur’, due to this mistake, eligible persons belonging to Village Dayalpur could not apply. Thus, the Authorities were justified in cancelling the selection process in order to hold fresh selection. 7. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, however, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Chairman of the Committee. If petitioner makes representation to the Chairman within three days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken within three weeks thereafter. The Chairman shall decide the said application untrammelled by any observation made earlier. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 17.11.2025 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13 69512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610 C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.11.17 05:07:20 -08'00' 2025:UHC:10183