SURJEENA Vs. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Worker and rejection of the appeal that was preferred by the petitioner against such selection, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) In the year 2009, the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, issued a notification dated 5.10.2009 with guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers under ICDS programme in Himachal Pradesh. One such post of Anganwari Worker was also notified for Anganwari Centre Kalamla, Gram Panchayat, Kilod, for which interviews were conducted on 28.2.2015 and respondent No.6 was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker. The petitioner aggrieved by her selection preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 9.4.2015 rejected the same constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.

(3.) It is vehemently argued by Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the selection of respondent No.6 is bad in law for the following reasons: