IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3430 of 2026 Decided on 13th July 2026 Geeta Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Subhash Mohan Snehi and Bhavinta Kumari, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, JOA (IT) Block Medical Office Banjar, District Kullu, is present in person alongwith record. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the appointment of the private respondent, in terms of Annexure P-4 dated 27.12.2025, against the post of Asha Worker. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, in response to Annexure P-1, advertisement dated 18.11.2025, the petitioner along with the private respondent and other participants applied for the post of Asha Worker in village 2 Bhallan-2, Banola Kandhi, Rounala. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that the private respondent did not submit complete documents as on the last date of submission thereof, i.e., 03.12.2025, she was offered appointment. 3. In order to ascertain this fact, on 20.03.2026, this Court had directed learned Additional Advocate General to produce the original record relating to the selection of the private respondent, including the record demonstrating when did private respondent submit documents and what documents were available with the authority when recommendation of the private respondent appointment against for the post in issue was made. 4. In response thereto, the relevant record has been produced for the perusal of the Court. Perusal thereof demonstrates that the private respondent submitted her application on 03.12.2025. Along with this application, she had submitted a certificate of Bonafide Himachali dated 27.05.2024, her +2 Examination Certificate, Matriculation Examination Certificate, Aadhaar Card, Income certificate dated 27.07.2020, Certificate of her belonging to Scheduled Caste dated 3 05.03.2020, Middle Standard Examination Certificate, Certificate of Diploma in Nursery Teachers Training, as also a Permanent Residence Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Bhallan-2 dated 03.12.2025. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner placed on record a Marriage Certificate which is dated 18.12.2025, which obviously was placed on record after the last date of submission of the form. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which have been obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act demonstrate that the documents appended with the application are not the one on the basis whereof the petitioner was offered appointment. 7. To clarify this fact, learned Deputy Advocate General made available for the perusal of the Court the original record of the appointment of the petitioner. On the strength thereof and the instructions imparted by Sh. Pankaj Kumar, JAO (IT), Block Medical Officer, Banjar, learned Deputy Advocate General apprised the Court that after a candidate is found suitable for appointment, then, before appointment is 4 offered to the candidate, such a candidate is again called upon to furnish contemporary record demonstrating the eligibility and it is in this backdrop that the private respondent had again submitted fresh documents, which were made available to the petitioner. 8. What has been submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General is evident from the record produced before the Court, which demonstrates that on 31.12.2025, when the private respondent submitted her joining report, which was duly entered in the dairy of the office of Block Medical Officer, Banjar, District Kullu, the documents which are appended with the petition by the petitioner were made available to the authorities by the private respondent. 9. Therefore, in the light of the above observations, as it is incorrect that necessary documents were not made available along with the application form by the private respondent to the authorities, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. 5 10. As far as the filing of the Marriage Certificate after the last date of submission of form is concerned, the same is of no consequence for the reason that it is not the case of the petitioner that the private respondent was recently married, when the advertisement was issued, because, documents appended with the original application demonstrate that the Income Certificate and Bonafide Resident Certificate, which were issued much earlier, reflect the private respondent to be a married lady and belonging to the village, where the post was offered. 11. 11. Accordingly, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 13, 2026 (Vinod)