2026:HHC:20660 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2877 of 2017 Decided on: 29.05.2026 ____________________________________________________ Sapna ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Chandel and Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. : Ms. Dhanvanti, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 17.7.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla (Annexure P-4), whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan (Annexure P-3), has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings in the present writ proceedings and in CWP No. 1664 of 2007, filed by the present respondent No 5 and Smt. Shashi Kumari i.e the other candidate who had participated in the selection process, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 which had been filed when nothing was heard by the aforesaid two writ petitioners qua appeal preferred against the appointment dated 03.08.2007 of the present writ petitioner (Sapna). 3. The present petition pertains to the process of filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Kunjhal, Tehsil Nalagarh (Baddi) District Solan, H.P. in the year 2007. In the said selection process conducted by respondent No.3, the present writ petitioner alongwith two other candidates had participated. The interview in the case at hand was held on 30.7.2007. Immediately thereafter, the appointment letter dated 3.8.2007 had been issued in favour of the present writ petitioner (Annexure R-5/A, page 52 of the paper book). In pursuance to the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner had joined on 10th August, 2007, as is evident from Annexure R-5/B, page 53 of the paper book. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid appointment, present respondent No.5, alongwith the other candidate who had participated in the selection process, i.e. one Smt. Shashi Kumari, had preferred a representation/appeal before the Deputy Commissioner concerned. The same is evident from Annexure P- 6 appended alongwith the record of CWP No. 1664 of 2007 (page 109 of the paper book). 5. As per respondent No.5, when nothing was heard qua the representation/appeal laying challenge to the 3 appointment of the petitioner from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, then a CWP bearing No. 1664 of 2007 was preferred by respondent No.5 and Shashi Kumari (the other candidate who participated in the selection process). The aforesaid writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 1664 of 2007, was decided vide a common judgment dated 17.5.2010. Vide common judgment passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010, decided on 17.5.2010, titled Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, alongwith other connected matters, wherein CWP No. 1664 of 2007 was also decided, a Division Bench of this Court had, insofar as the income certificate on the basis of which appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker was being considered, stated as follows:- “5. In case the authority is of the view that the income certificate issued to any Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in these cases, is not based on proper computation of income, it will be open to the competent authority to take steps to cancel the same. But it is made clear that such cancellation shall only be, after affording an opportunity for hearing to the incumbent concerned. So long as the cancellation is not made by the competent authority in accordance with law, and procedure for cancellation and in case notice is not given to the affected party in the enquiry, the incumbent concerned shall not be deprived of their posts, to which they were appointed, based on the income certificates, they produced at the relevant time. 6. There will be a direction to the appellate authority in these cases, to take appropriate steps in the cases where a dispute on income is involved, to get the same duly processed by the competent authority, in the matter of cancellation. Necessary steps in that regard will be taken and action finalized within a period of four months from the date of production of this judgment to the competent authority. That competent authority will 4 also afford an opportunity to the affected party to participate in that proceedings. Subject to the outcome of the action thus taken by the competent authority, on the income certificate already issued to the incumbent, the appellate authority will take appropriate action within two months. We also make it clear that in the event of any appointment being cancelled, the appellate authority will also issue necessary directions for the next person from the list, to be appointed, in case a list is available. Needless to say that until the process, as above said, is completed, the incumbents now working, will be continued. We may make it clear that the inquiry will be on the basis of the Policy/Guidelines as existed at the time of appointment”. 6. Since in the representation (i.e. Annexure P-6, page 109 of CWP No. 1664 of 2007, a challenge had been laid to the income certificate issued in favour of the present petitioner, hence, in view of the aforesaid directions issued vide common judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 titled Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, alongwith other connected matters, wherein CWP No. 1664 of 2007 had also been decided, the income certificate of the petitioner was got re- verified. 7. The Tehsildar, Nalagarh had conducted an inquiry by associating both the parties. Based on the material placed on record, the Tehsildar concerned had cancelled the income certificate bearing No. 5183/2007 dated 12.6.2007 issued in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 2.4.2012. Post receipt of the aforesaid cancellation of the income certificate, the Deputy 5 Commissioner, Solan, District Solan had set aside, vide Annexure P-3, the appointment of the present petitioner. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the same, appeal bearing No. 107 of 2013 was instituted before the Divisional Commissioner, on 22.4.2013 and the same was decided on 17.7.2017. In appeal, the income certificate of the petitioner, which had been set aside post verification by the Tehsildar concerned, was not interfered with by the Divisional Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed. A challenge to the income certificate of the petitioner in the case at hand which had been set aside by the Tehsildar concerned vide order dated 2.4.2012, in pursuance to the directions of a division bench of this court in judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 titled Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, alongwith other connected matters, wherein CWP No. 1664 of 2007 had also been decided, could not have been assailed before the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal instituted against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan (Annexure P-3) whereby the appointment of the present petitioner had been set aside. 9. In the aforesaid factual matrix the only contention now raised in the writ petition is with respect to the belated filing of the appeal by respondent No.5 before the Deputy Commissioner concerned. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant clause qua filing of the appeal as contained in 6 notification dated 11.4.2007, which lays down the scheme/guidelines for the engagement of Anganwari Workers. The relevant provisions read as follows:- “12. Any candidate aggrieved by any order of Child Development Project Officer appointing Anganwadi Worker and Helper may file an appeal to Deputy Commissioner with in a period of 15 days of the declaration of the result who will decide the case with in 15 days. Appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner may be inade to the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days of the order of the DC. This will be the final appeal.” 10. Further, it would be appropriate to refer to order dated 7.3.2026. The same is reproduced here-in-below for a ready reference:- “One of the contentions being raised in the present petition is that the appointment of the petitioner, made on 3.8.2007, had been challenged by the present respondent No. 5 belatedly, i.e. 15 days after the said appointment. In this context, attention is invited to Annexure P-3, the judgment passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 13.12.2012, wherein at internal page No. 2, it has been recorded that the challenge to the appointment of the petitioner was made by a joint representation dated 14.11.2007, admittedly after the lapse of 15 days of the prescribed period of limitation. In this respect, attention of this Court has been invited to the judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 along with other connected matters, specifically para 19 thereof. The same reads as follows:- “19. Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, the cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to 7 be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal”. From the same, It is evident that there is no provision for condonation of delay in respect of an appeal filed belatedly before the Deputy Commissioner in the case at hand. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed on behalf of the said respondent, wherein in para 3 at page 46 it has been categorically mentioned that the appeal had been filed on 16.8.2007 well within the period of limitation, i.e. within 15 days from the date of appointment dated 3.8.2007 in the case at hand. In the aforesaid circumstances, let the records of the case, specifically the appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, be called for on or before the next date of hearing. List after receipt of the record.” 11. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, record of CWP No. 1664 of 2007 has been placed on record. As already stated supra, appointment letter of the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure R-5/A, page 52 of the paper book of the present writ proceedings. The same is dated 3.8.2007. In pursuance to the aforesaid, the petitioner had joined on 10.8.2007, as is evident from Annexure R-5/B (page 53 of the paper book of the present writ proceedings). From the record perused, pertaining to CWP No. 1664 of 2007, it is evident from Annexure P-6 contained therein at page 109 of the paper book that a representation by the present respondent No.5, alongwith one other candidate who had participated in the selection process, namely Shashi Kumari, was made to the Deputy Commissioner. In pursuance whereto the Sub Divisional Officer 8 had summoned Shashi Kumari. The said summon is placed as Annexure P-7(page 110 of CWP No. 1664 of 2007), wherefrom it is evident that the appeal/complaint made by Shashi Kumari/ present respondent No.5 is dated 7.8.2007. Therefore, it is evident that the appeal/complaint had been made by Shashi Kumari/ present respondent No.5 within 15 days of the issuance of the letter of appointment dated 3.8.2007 to the present petitioner. As already stated supra since no progress had been made in the appeal/representation made to the Deputy Commissioner, writ petition No. 1664 of 2007 was filed before this Court which was disposed of alongwith the connected matters vide common judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 1096 of 2010 titled Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others and connected matters. 12. In view of the aforesaid the present petition is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 29th May, 2026 tarun