IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7214 of 2014 Decided on: 19.09.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Ramila Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of HP and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 8. Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.9 and 10 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge In this writ petition, instituted on 25.09.2014, petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents No. 9 and 10 as ASHA Workers in Gram Panchayat Painjair Khurd . 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. The only ground urged for assailing the selection and appointment of respondents No. 9 and 10 as ASHA 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Workers is that in terms of applicable scheme for appointment of such ASHA Workers, (Annexure P-1), the appointing authority was required to give preference to the female candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes and Below Poverty Line (BPL) Categories. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes and BPL category; She has not been selected to the post, whereas private respondents, who neither belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes categories nor they belong to BPL category, have been selected and appointed on the post of ASHA Workers. 4. Annexure P-1 relied upon by the petitioner in support of above submissions, gives following criteria for selection:- “Criteria for selection: 1. ASHA must be a woman resident of the village preferably Married/widow/divorced/separated and preferably in the age group of 25 to 45 years. 2. ASHA should have effective communication skills, leadership qualities and be able to reach out to the community. 3. She should be literate woman with formal education upto Eight Class. 4. She should have family and social support to enable her to find the time to carry out her tasks. 5. The educational and age criteria can be relaxed if no suitable woman with this qualification is available in the - 3 - area.. 6. Adequate representation from disadvantaged population groups should be ensured to serve the such groups better. 7. 531 ASHAs who were selected and had undergone training in 2007 will be selected provided that they fulfill eligibility criteria (list attached) . As. ASHA is to be owned by the community a decentralized process of selection by approval of Gram Sabha is mandatory. This is important for the smooth functioning of NRHM.” Thus for selection of ASHA Worker, candidate must be a woman resident of the village, preferably married / widow / divorced / separated and in the age group of 25 to 45 years. Annexure P-1 also provides as under:- “The Committee shall make all efforts to ensure that one name on the basis of consensus is short listed. Only in the rarest of rare cases, if consensus is not possible despite all efforts, can more than one name be recommended (maximum of 3 names). In such a case, the Committee will select one name for approval of Gram Sabha on the following preference criteria:- a) Candidates from the marginalized community (SC/ST/BPL) b) Widowed/divorced/deserted women. c) Candidates with effective communication skills d Candidates with some experience in social or community work. In terms of above provision, in case the Committee is not able to reach consensus on one name, then the selection process would be on the basis of a preference criteria viz (i) Candidate from marginalized community (SC / - 4 - ST / BPL), ii) Widowed / Divorcee / Deserted women, iii) Candidates with effective communication skills, and iv) Candidates with some experience in social or community work. The reply filed by the respondents is categorical that petitioner had participated in the selection process under the aforesaid criteria. Her candidature was duly considered. Petitioner appeared in the interview, but she could not secure position as per her merit and as such was not selected on account of her being low in the merit. This being the factual position, the claim of the petitioner is misconceived as in terms of applicable policy at Annexure P-1, preference selection criteria relied upon by the petitioner has to be followed only in case the selection by consensus of the Committee is not possible. Such eventuality did not arise in the instant case. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge September 19,2026 R.Atal