2026:UHC:4393 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1410/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ishwari Dutt Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri in Anganwadi Centre Bhagoti, Tehsil Chaukhutiya, District Almora before marriage. After marriage, she applied for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri in Anganwadi Centre Pupdev, Block Bin, District Pithoragarh. Her name figured at Sl. No. 1 in the merit list, prepared by the Block Level Selection Committee, however, instead of petitioner, respondent no. 5 was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the appointment given to respondent no. 5. She has also sought a direction to the Competent Authority to appoint her as Anganwadi Karyakatri. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner was wrongly given preference in the selection for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri by misreading Government Order dated 18.12.2024. He refers to Clause-12 of that Government Order, which provides for preference to candidates, who are serving as Anganwadi Sahayika for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri. He, however, submits that as per Clause-12 (1) of that Government Order, a candidate, who is already serving as Anganwadi Karyakatri anywhere in the State is not entitled to such preference in the matter of appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri in any other 2026:UHC:4393 Anganwadi Centre within the State and preference would be available, only if an Anganwadi Karyakatri resigns from the position, she is holding and then applies for fresh appointment elsewhere. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner was holding the office as Anganwadi Karyakatri in District Almora till her selection for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri in District Pithoragarh, therefore, when this anomaly was came to notice, then the mistake was immediately corrected by the District Level Appellate Committee and the appointment was offered to respondent no. 5, who had scored highest marks in the selection process. The merit list is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The merit list indicates that Indra Verma (respondent no. 5) had scored 15.547 marks in the selection; while petitioner’s score was only 12.16. Thus, there were three more candidates, who had secured more marks than the petitioner in the selection. Thus, the stand taken by respondents is plausible that petitioner was given benefit of preference to which she was not entitled as per Government Policy. 6. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.06.2026 Navin