IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.79 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Jyoti …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajul Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajul Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that complaint made by her dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) alleging therein that person, namely Pooja Kumari, respondent No.6, has been wrongly appointed against the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Matdyana, Gram Panchayat Kulehra, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, is pending consideration for long, but no action is being taken upon the same. 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to communication dated 01.10.2025, issued 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, District Hamirpur addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer(C) Barsar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, submitted that vide aforesaid communication, afore authority was directed to inquire about the correctness of the income certificate furnished by respondent No.6 at the time of her selection, but till date file is being shuttled from one office to another, as a result thereof, respondent No.6 is working against the post, for which she was otherwise not eligible. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents-State, states that complaint was filed in the month of September, 2025 and in the same report has been already called upon by the competent authority and as such, petitioner cannot be permitted to claim that no action is being taken upon her complaint. 4. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, rather same can be disposed of on the basis of the material already available on record. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to disposed of the same with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur to ensure that complaint filed at the behest of the petitioner against the appointment of respondent No.6 is taken to its logical ends expeditiously, 3 preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 and pass appropriate orders. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 05, 2026 (shankar)