2025:HHC:39387 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 191 of 2024 a/w LPA No. 193 of 2022 and LPA No. 110 of 2023 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ 1. LPA No. 191 of 2024 Santosh ....Appellant Versus State of HP and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ 2. LPA No. 193 of 2022 Babita ....Appellant Versus State of HP and others …Respondents ____________________________________________________ 3. LPA No. 110 of 2023 Babita ....Appellant Versus State of HP and others …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista and Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocates, in LPA No. 191 of 2024 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, in LPA No. 193 of 2022 and LPA No. 110 of 2023. For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3 in LPA No. 191 of 2024 and LPA No. 110 of 2023 and for respondents No. 1 to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:39387 4 in LPA No. 193 of 2022. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 in LPA No. 191 of 2024 and Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista and Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocates, for respondent No. 5 in LPA No. 110 of 2023. Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 6 in LPA No. 191 of 2024 and in LPA No. 110 of 2023. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Learned counsels have very fairly pointed out that the cancellation of the income certificate was done on 17.08.2012 and was upheld on 24.09.2013, and in view of that the consideration for appointment as Anganwari worker would not survive. It is also submitted that the order quashing the appointment and offering the post to Surendra Devi by the learned Single Judge was on the basis that even Santosh could not be granted the benefit and both Babita and Santosh belong to the same family. Further, they had furnished separate income certificates and it is also pointed out the fact that they had land in two separate villages which had not been correctly depicted while applying for the post of Anganwadi worker. In such circumstances counsels are not in a position 2 2025:HHC:39387 to press the appeal(s). Resultantly, all the three appeals are dismissed, in view of the fair stand taken by the counsels being aware of the facts that costs may be imposed upon the appellants. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 20 th November , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge 3