2025:UHC:11054 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/ 2 1 0 7 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J 1. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner participated in a selection for appointment to the post of Aanganwari Karyakatri in respect of Aanganwari Centre Lalwala, Centre III, Haridwar. According to her, she was placed on top of the merit list and the Selection Committee had recommended her name, but appointment letter is not being issued to her. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent authorities to forthwith issuance of the appointment letter of the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti to petitioner as per the final merit list dated 12.06.2025. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent authorities to awarded the appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarti for the vacant post of centre No. 3 Lalwala Haridwar. 5. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. On instructions, he made a statement that another candidate, namely, Ms. Sonia had made a complaint to the Appellate Authority, that her candidature was wrongly rejected in the selection in question; she was resident of same village, yet she was declared to be ineligible on the 2025:UHC:11054 ground that she belongs to some other village. 6. Learned State Counsel further apprised the Court that the marks scored by Ms. Sonia are more than the marks scored by petitioner, therefore, she has a better claim for appointment, if found eligible. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that as per his information, Ms. Sonia has relied upon fake postgraduate degree and she never passed M.A. examination. He further submits that Ms. Sonia scored only 12.9 marks, while petitioner scored 15.44 marks. 8. Since the issues raised by learned counsels for the parties are beyond the pleadings made in the writ petition and these disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition, therefore, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if the matter is relegated to District Programme Officer, Haridwar. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to District Programme Officer (respondent no. 6) to look into the question of eligibility of all candidates, who participated in the selection, including Ms. Sonia and petitioner. The District Programme Officer shall also examine the comparative merit of all candidates, and after ascertaining the eligibility, the candidate, who scored highest marks in the selection, shall be offered appointment. The entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J) 11.12.2025 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08 b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DAC F4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.12.11 05:27:46 -08'00' 2025:UHC:11054