2026:HHC:21070 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8681 of 2026 Decided on: 02.06.2026 Uploaded on: 04.06.2026 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 : Ms. Shivani, Advocate as Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned selection of Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to the post of ASHA Facilitator, Block Arki, District Solan (Annexure P-4) and consequential appointments made pursuant to the selection process initiated in November 2025; b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order/communication dated 26.02.2026 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:21070 (Annexure P-7); C. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to re-evaluate the candidature of the petitioner for the post of IBIASHA Facilitator, Block Arki, strictly in accordance with the notified parameters prescribed under the Guidelines for Engagement of Facilitator dated 31.03.2023, by awarding marks 07 the under head to "Incentive/ Performance" and thereafter consider and appoint the petitioner to the said post with all consequential benefits; d. Declare Clause 12 of the Guidelines dated 31.03.2023 prescribing limitation of 15 days for filing objections, as unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, insofar as it runs from the date of declaration of result without communication thereof;” 2. The impugned order Annexure P-7, is dated 26.02.2026. Relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Subject:- Complaint regarding irregularities in the selection process of ASHA Facilitator in Block Arki thereof. Sir, This is in reference of letter received from your goodself dated 19.02.2026 on the subject cited. In this regard, it is bring to your kind notice that the first and final appeal by any aggrieved candidate can be made to the concerned Chief Medical Officer in the case of Rural area shall be admissible only within 15 days of declaration of result, beyond which no 3 2026:HHC:21070 appeal shall be accepted, being time-barred vide Notification No. NHMHP-CP0GEN/7/2019-CP-National Health Mission- HP-8832 dated 31.03.2023 at point No. 12 of Appeal against selection. So that the appeal is not being entertained as it is been made after the requisite time. This is for you kind information please.” 3. When this case was listed before the Court on 29.05.2026, the following order was passed:- “Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4 only. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Annexure P-7, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been returned back/ not entertained on the ground that it was time barred. Having perused the impugned communication, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner invoked her right to file appeal in terms of Clause-12 of the Guidelines for engagement of ASHA Facilitator, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. In terms of Clause-12, the appeal by an aggrieved candidate is to be preferred before the Chief Medical Officer in case of rural area and the same has to be preferred only within 15 days of declaration of result and beyond the said date no appeal in terms of this Clause is to be accepted. As per the impugned communication, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been refused to be entertained on the ground that the same was not filed within 15 days of the declaration of result. As observed hereinabove, as the appeal was filed by the petitioner in terms of Clause-12 of the relevant Guidelines, the Appellate Authority could not have had 4 2026:HHC:21070 refused to entertain the same. The Authority was legally bound to entertain the same and thereafter, while functioning on the Quassi Judicial side, it could have passed any order thereupon, be it dismissing the appeal as time barred. However, the appeal could not have been refused to be entertained at all as has been done in the present case on the Administrative Side. Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted some time to have instructions. As prayed for, list on 01.06.2026.” 4. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions received from the Chief Medical Officer, Solan, dated 30.05.2026, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “Please refer your good office letter No. CWP No. 8681/2026-dated 30.05.2026 on the subject cited above. In this context it is apprised that, in accordance with the guidelines issued vide Notification No. NHMHP- CPOGEN/7/2019-CP-(12582) dated 31.03.2023 (copy attached for ready reference), and as per the Block Medical Officer Arki vide Office Order No. HFW-ARK-(Gen) 2025-219- 26, dated 15.01.2026 (copy attached for ready reference), the interview and document verification conducted on 12.01.2026 at Civil Hospital Arki for the post of ASHA Facilitator under the Community Process Programme, National Health Mission Himachal Pradesh, wherein the six (06) ASHAs have been selected amongst the list of 16 candidates, and declared the result of ASHA Facilitator on 15.01.2026 vide his office order No. dated 15.01.2026, as mentioned above. 5 2026:HHC:21070 1) That. Smt. Anita Kumari, W/o Sh. Neel Kamal, Village- Numhala, P.O. - Darla, Tehsil- Arki, District Solan, has applied for the post of ASHA Facilitator (As per Sr. No. 15) as per the list of ASHAs for the post of ASHA Faciliatator being prepared at Civil Hospital Arki and duly signed by the selection committee (copy attached for ready reference) constituted for the said purpose. 2. That Block Medical Officer Arki vide Office Order No. HFW- ARK-(Gen).2025-219-26, dated 15.01.2026 has declared the result for the post of ASHA Facilitator under the Community Process Programme, National Health Mission Himachal Pradesh, wherein the six (06) ASHAS have been selected amongst the list of 16 candidates, for which interview and document verification conducted on 12.01.2026 at Civil Hospital Arki. 3. That, feeling aggrieved, Smt. Anita Kumari, W/o Sh. Neel Kamal, Village- Numhala, P.O. - Darla, Tehsil-Arki, District Solan has initially filed an representation to this office vide letter No. dated 19.02.2026 thereby raising various objections for not furnishing the information under the RTI ACT, 2005. Further, in response to the said representation made by Smt. Anita Kumari, W/o Sh. Neel Kamal, Village- Numhala, P.O. - Darla, Tehsil- Arki, District Solan, she was replied vide this office letter No.HFW-SLN-ASHA(NHM)2025/- 4806-07 dated 26.02.2026, thereby informing the provision with regards to appeal for one month. Subsequently the 6 2026:HHC:21070 petitioner has filed an appeal on 18.03.2026 on online RTI portal as due to technical issues with the portal, the application could not be processed within the stipulated time. The application was subsequently received in this office on 17.04.2026, and the hearing of RTI appeal was fixed on 29.04.2026 11:00 AM. That. after the hearing of RTI, the PIO- CUM- BMO Arki was directed to provide the remained information if any to the appellant, after obtaining the consent of the third party under section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 within seven days, so the appeal is hereby disposed off on merit basis. However, due to bonafide mistake the appeal was returned back vide letter dated No. HFW-SLN(RTI Appeal)/2023-10428, dated 04.05.2026 without passing any quassi judicial orders thereupon as per the factual position on record. However, to rectify the said bonafide mistake it has been decided to grant a opportunity of hearing to the appellant for disposing her appeal by way of passing quassi judicial orders as per the factual position, which has now been fixed for 09.06.2026 (Tuesday) at 11:00 AM in the O/o undersigned. This is submitted for favour of your kind information and taking further necessary action at your end please.” 5. In light of the above instructions, no further order is now required to be passed in the present petition, save and except quashing of Annexure P-7 as the appeal is stated to have been listed for fresh hearing on 09.06.2026 afresh. Ordered accordingly. 7 2026:HHC:21070 6. However, before parting with the case, this Court would like to make an observation. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in umpteen number of cases has been pleased to lay down that no action of any Authority, which has the semblance of deciding the rights of a party, should be taken at the back of the party concerned. This includes administrative decisions also, leave aside quasi judicial. In number of cases, this Court is finding that where appeals etc. are being filed before the quasi judicial authorities, may be time barred appeals, the office of the Authority or the Authority itself, are refusing to entertain the appeals and are returning the same back or dismissing it by way of a communication that the appeals are time barred. This is not how the appeal which is preferred by a party in accordance with some Statute or Regulation or Policy has to be dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Whenever any appeal is preferred before such an authority, the authority is bound to entertain the same and in the course of adjudication thereof, if the authority comes to the conclusion that the same is time barred, appropriate orders can be passed thereupon. However, the appeals cannot be rejected on the administrative side on this count and any order that has to be passed thereupon has to be passed on the quasi judicial side only. 7. A five Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 600, by reiterating the 8 2026:HHC:21070 law earlier declared by it in State of Orisa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, (1967) 2 SCR 625, has held that even an administrative order, which involves civil consequences, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case. 8. In Basudev Dutta vs. State of Bengal and others, 2024, SCC Online 3616, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that it is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain the reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law and in the absence of any reasons, it also poses a difficulty for the judicial authorities to test the correctness of the order or exercise its power of judicial review. After referring to its earlier judgments on the issue, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has been pleased to hold in para 47 thereof as under:- “47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the 9 2026:HHC:21070 wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial 10 2026:HHC:21070 accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision- makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37]). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the 11 2026:HHC:21070 decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." 9. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the policy in issue i.e. Annexure P-1, submitted that in light of Clause 12 and the language thereof, appeal is admissible only within 15 days of declaration of the result and beyond this period, no appeal ‘shall’ be accepted, being time barred. He submits that in light of this language, the Authorities are refusing to accept the appeal because the clause itself says that no appeal shall be accepted beyond 15 days, being time barred. 10. This Court is of the considered view that this clause cannot be read and interpreted in the manner being suggested by the learned Additional Advocate General. Clause 12 provides that the appeal shall be admissible only within 15 days of the declaration of the result, beyond which, no appeal shall be accepted, being time barred. Meaning thereby that in case there is a time barred appeal, the same cannot be allowed or entertained being time barred. However, finding as to whether the same is time barred or not has to be given by the quasi judicial authority by passing an order. The language of Clause 12 cannot be used as a shield by the Authority not to perform the quasi judicial functions, which such an authority has to perform. Accordingly, while disposing of this petition, this Court is issuing directions that the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall ensure that this judgment is 12 2026:HHC:21070 brought to the notice of all Authorities exercising quasi judicial powers and necessary instructions are issued to all such authorities who that proceedings which are preferred by a party before them, be decided or dealt with on the quasi judicial side, by passing quasi judicial orders. They should not be dealt like any other ordinary file or representation is dealt with by the office of Quasi Judicial Authority. Let necessary instructions be issued to all the Quasi Judicial Authorities in the State of Himachal Pradesh within a period of four weeks. 11. Though, this petition is being disposed of on merit but for compliance of this part of the order, the same is listed on 06.07.2026. The petitioner through Counsel is directed to appear before the Authority on 06.07.2026, on which date, the Authority shall fix a date for passing further orders. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 02, 2026 (narender)