2026:HHC:6186 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 880 of 2014 Decided on : 07.03.2026 Smt. Anita Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent no. 4 and the impugned order i.e. Annexure P-11. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6186 Respondent authorities to give appointment to the present petitioner who being first candidate in the waiting list.” 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the appointment of the private respondent against the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre Tangling, under I.C.D.S Project, Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. According to the petitioner, the interviews for the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Center Tangling, District Kinnaur, were held on 13.03.2013, and the result thereof was declared on 30.03.2013. It is further the contention of the petitioner that besides her, other candidates had also appeared in the interview, including the private respondent. It is further her case that in terms of the interview marks which have been granted by the committee vide Annexure P-2, dated 30.03.2013, the private respondent has been offered appointment, which according to the petitioner is bad in law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-6 and submitted that after the issuance of Annexure P-2, a complaint was filed by the petitioner with the Deputy Commissioner concerned, 3 2026:HHC:6186 mentioning therein, that she was not satisfied with the interview, but in terms of Annexure P-11, dated 15.05.2013, her complaint was not considered in the right perspective and as the appointment that was given to the private respondent, has not been set aside, hence the petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel for the private respondent argued that this writ petition assailing the appointment of the private respondent is not maintainable. They submitted that in terms of the policy for appointment of Anganwari Workers, there is a provision of preferring an appeal against the selection of a successful candidate within 15 days of the appointment of said candidate and in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 02.08.2019, passed in CWP No. 438 of 2017, titled as Praveena Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and other connected matters, the appointment has to be mandatorily challenged by way of appeal and appeal also mandatorily has to be filed within 15 days of the appointment and beyond the period of 15 days, even an appeal is not maintainable. Learned Assistant 4 2026:HHC:6186 Advocate General thus submitted that herein, as no appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the appointment of private respondent, said appointment has attained finality and the same could not have been challenged by way of this writ petition. Learned Assistant Advocate General further submitted that a perusal of the so-called complaint filed by the petitioner demonstrates that it was a cryptic complaint wherein nothing was mentioned as to how the selection of the private respondent was bad and all that was mentioned in this letter, i.e. Annexure P-6 was that the petitioner was not satisfied with the interview. Learned Assistant Advocate General thus submitted that because there was no mention in Annexure P-6 as to what was the infirmity in the interview process, now whatever is contended in the petition is an afterthought which cannot be taken into consideration and, therefore also, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General and also learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. 6. Learned Assistant Advocate General has made 5 2026:HHC:6186 available for the perusal of the Court the policy relating to the appointment of Anganwari Workers, i.e., Scheme Guidelines for engagement of Anganwari Workers, store helpers on honorary basis under ICDS Scheme run by Social Justice and Empowerment Department, which was in vogue at the relevant time. In terms of Clause-12 of this Anganwari notification, a person aggrieved by the appointment of an Anganwari Worker could prefer an appeal to the concerned Deputy Commissioner within 15 days of appointment. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the appointment of the respondent was not assailed by the petitioner by invoking Clause-12 by preferring any appeal before the Deputy Commissioner concerned. 8. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Praveena Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. other connected matters (supra), while dealing with the issue of Clause-12 of the Policy, has been pleased to hold as under:- “19. The upshots of the discussion hereinabove, therefore would be as follow: (i) The provisions contained under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable only to the proceedings pending in the Courts alone and not 6 2026:HHC:6186 before the quasi judicial authorities like the Appellate Authority under the Scheme. (ii) The Appellate Authority under the Scheme where there is provisions of 15 days for filing the appeal from the date of issuance of the result or the date of appointment, as the case may be, is not competent to condone the delay and the person aggrieved should prefer appeal within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result/appointment of the selected candidate. The Appellate Authority in order to verify the factual position is competent to requisition the record pertaining to the selection so made. (iii) Since in the Scheme framed by the respondent-State, there is no provision for condonation of delay, therefore, the person aggrieved is not entitled to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act and rather to file the appeal well within the time prescribed under the Scheme. (iv) In few of the schemes where no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal, the aggrieved person must file the appeal within reasonable time to be determined on taking into consideration the facts of each case. 7 2026:HHC:6186 (v) In an appeal preferred against the order of the first Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner irrespective of there is no requirement under the scheme to file certified copy of order nor any procedure prescribed for filing the same, the question that certified copy of impugned order is required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal or it is sufficient to mention the date of such order is left open to be considered in due course, if arises in any of the writ petitions/LPA which have to be heard separately.” 9. Thereafter again, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2130 of 2016, titled Savitri Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, decided on 03.09.2019, has been pleased to hold as under:- “3(i). This Court in a bunch of writ petitions and Letter Patent Appeals with lead case CWP No.438 of 2017, titled as Praveena Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. decided on 02.08.2019, discussed the entire gamut of ‘limitation’ for filing appeals before the appellate authority challenging the selection and appointment of Anganwari workers under different Anganwari policies. Extract from 8 2026:HHC:6186 the judgment is being reproduced hereinafter:- “19. The upshots of the discussion hereinabove, therefore would be as follow: (i) The provisions contained under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable only to the proceedings pending in the Courts alone and not before the quasi judicial authorities like the Appellate Authority under the Scheme. (ii) The Appellate Authority under the Scheme where there is provisions of 15 days for filing the appeal from the date of issuance of the result or the date of appointment, as the case may be, is not competent to condone the delay and the person aggrieved should prefer appeal within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result/appointment of the selected candidate. The Appellate Authority in order to verify the factual position is competent to requisition the record pertaining to the selection so made. (iii) Since in the Scheme framed by the respondent-State, there is no provision for condonation of delay, therefore, the person aggrieved is not entitled to invoke Section 5 of the 9 2026:HHC:6186 Limitation Act and rather to file the appeal well within the time prescribed under the Scheme. (iv) In few of the schemes where no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal, the aggrieved person must file the appeal within reasonable time to be determined on taking into consideration the facts of each case. (v) In an appeal preferred against the order of the first Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner to the Divisional Commissioner irrespective of there is no requirement under the scheme to file certified copy of order nor any procedure prescribed for filing the same,the question that certified copy of impugned order is required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal or it is sufficient to mention the date of such order is left open to be considered in due course, if arises in any of the writ petitions/LPA which have to be heard separately.” The judgment clearly says; Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be invoked by the aggrieved person in absence of any provision for condonation of delay in filing the appeals in the Anganwari Schemes framed by the State. 10 2026:HHC:6186 Therefore the appeal has to be filed within the time prescribed under the scheme and within a reasonable time in case no time limit is prescribed. Under the Anganwadi scheme, there is no power with the quasi- judicial appellate authority to condone the delay, in filing the appeal.” 10. Thus, it is evident from the Policy in vogue at the relevant time and said two judgments that someone who is aggrieved by the appointment of an Anganwari Worker, has to prefer an appeal and, that too, within 15 days from the date of such appointment. In the present case, as no such appeal was filed, the appointment of the private respondent cannot be allowed to be assailed by way of this writ petition. 11. Therefore, in light of the fact that no appeal, as envisaged in the Policy was filed by the petitioner, obviously, she cannot be allowed to assail the appointment of the private respondent by way of this writ petition. This Court also concurs with the submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate General and the learned counsel for the private respondent that even in the initial complaint filed by the petitioner, Annexure P- 6, there was not even a whisper as to how the appointment of 11 2026:HHC:6186 the private respondent was bad and all that was mentioned therein was that the petitioner was not satisfied with the interview. That was not enough to assail the appointment of the private respondent or the selection process. Further, it is also a matter of record that the private respondent is now serving against the post in issue for more than 12 years. 12. In light of above discussion, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 07, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)