2026:HHC:23768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6382 of 2026 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Rama Sharma … 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. Dinesh K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ms. Reeta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) The orders Dated 13.11.2025(Annexure P/9) & impugned orders Dated 03.03.2026 (Annexure P/11) may be quashed and set aside. (ii) The Orders Dated 11.07.2025(Annexure P/7) issued by respondent no. 3 may be restored and directions may be issued to retain the petitioner at Majyath Non-NUHM Urban Area, which falls under Primary Health Centre, Totu. (iii) The respondent no 2 & 3 may be directed to release emoluments in favour of petitioner, who has served and performed her duty in the field from 11.07.2025 to 03.03.2026. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23768 The respondent no. 3 may be directed to act as per Notification Dated 17.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh which is a notified Guidelines for the engagement of the ASHA Worker on performance based Incentive Community Progress Programmer in NHM.” 2. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by Annexure P-9, in terms whereof, while deciding an appeal filed by Ms. Bhuvneshwari (respondent No.5 herein), against Ms. Megha Sharma (respondent No.4 herein), the Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal has ordered that Ms. Bhuvneshwari be appointed in place of Ms. Megha Sharma, as an ASHA Worker in Ward No 6, Totu, with further direction that Ms. Megha Sharma be appointed as such in Ward No.7, which has resulted in the ouster of the present petitioner as an ASHA Worker from Ward No 7, who was not even a party before the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by Ms. Bhuvneshwari against Ms. Megha Sharma. 3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that certain ports of ASHA workers were advertised under the NUHM and this included a post for Totu Ward and one post for Majyath Ward. According to the petitioner, in terms of advertisement notice dated 20.05.2026, she applied for the post in Majyath Ward, i e Ward No.7. The petitioner was offered appointment in terms of Annexure P-7, as an ASHA Worker, in Ward No. 7 Majyath. Similarly, Ms. 3 2026:HHC:23768 Megha Sharma was offered appointment as such in the Totu Ward. An appeal was filed by Ms.Bhuvneshwari against the appointment of Ms. Megha Sharma as ASHA Worker in the Totu Ward, inter alia, on the ground that said candidate had not applied for the appointment in the said Ward. In terms of Annexure P-9, i.e. the impugned order, the Appellate Authority while accepting the contention of the appellant therein, namely, Ms.Bhuvneshwari, allowed the appeal by ordering the appointment of Ms. Bhuvneshwari in place of Ms.Megha Sharma in Ward No.6. Simultaneously, the Appellate Authority also returned the findings that as Ms. Megha Sharma had applied for appointment as an ASHA Worker in Ward No.7, therefore, she be offered appointment in Ward No.7, i e. the Ward where the petitioner stood appointed. This was followed by issuance of Annexure P-11, dated 03.03.2026, in terms whereof, Ms.Bhuvneshwari was appointed as an ASHA Worker for Totu (Ward No.6) and Ms.Megha Sharma was appointed as an ASHA Worker for Majyath (Ward No.7), as a result whereof, the selection of the petitioner stood cancelled. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings and documents on record, this Court is of the considered view that this petition deserves to be partly allowed. 5. It is not in dispute that Ms. Bhuvneshwari had preferred an appeal only against Ms.Megha Sharma, feeling aggrieved by her 4 2026:HHC:23768 selection as an ASHA Worker in Ward No.6 (Totu). This Court is of the considered view that in the course of deciding said appeal, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to have had passed an adverse order having civil consequences as far as the present petitioner is concerned and that too, at her back. If the Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that Ms. Megha Sharma was wrongly offered an appointment as an ASHA worker in Ward No.6 and Ms.Bhuvneshwari was entitled for appointment in the said Ward, the Appellate Authority should have simply allowed the appeal to this extent by ordering appointment of Ms.Bhuvneshwari in place of Ms.Megha Sharma. The Appellate Authority had no authority to thereafter venture into what it has done, i.e. ordering that Ms. Megha Sharma be offered appointment in Ward No.7. By doing so, the Appellate Authority has lost sight of the fact that this order has adversely affected the present petitioner, who stood appointed as an ASHA worker in Ward No.7. 6. It is settled principle of law that that no order which has civil consequences, can be passed by an Authority behind the back of the person. Here, the order, which has taken away the job of the petitioner has been passed on the basis of an order passed by Appellate Authority in proceedings in which the petitioner was not even a party. In fact, when the facts were before the Appellate Authority, said Authority would have been well advised to have had 5 2026:HHC:23768 stopped after ordering appointment of Ms.Bhuvneshwari in place of Ms. Megha Sharma. In case the Appellate Authority was of the considered view that Ms.Megha Sharma was entitled for appointment in Ward No.7 on any basis, be it merit, it should have had suo motu issued notice to the petitioner, making her a party in the proceedings and any order should have been passed after hearing her. 7. In the absence of this procedure being followed, the order past by the Appellate Authority to the extent that it has directed the Selection Committee to offer appointment to Ms. Megha Sharma in Ward No.7 is bad in law and is quashed and set aside. 8. In other words, this Court is not interfering with the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in terms whereof, it held that Ms.Bhuvneshwari was entitled for appointment in Ward No.6, but the subsequent order passed by the Authority that Mega Sharma be offered appointment in Ward No.7, is quashed and set aside. 9. As a result thereof, Annexure P-11 is also quashed and set aside to the extent that Ms.Megha Sharma has been offered appointment for Majyath (Ward No. 7), as also to the extent, the selection of the petitioner has been set aside. 10. Present petition is disposed of accordingly with further observation that on the strength of the order passed by the Appellate 6 2026:HHC:23768 Authority, Ms.Megha Sharma, if so advised, may independently in accordance with law assail the selection of Rama Sharma before Appellate Authority by way of an appeal. If such an appeal is in fact filed within 30 days from today, then the same be treated as filed within the period of limitation and be decided on merit. However, in the meanwhile, as a consequence of the judgment being passed today, the appointment of Ms.Megha Sharma in Ward No.7 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate Rama Sharma from the date her services were terminated, with all consequential benefits. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 22, 2026 (Rishi)