IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2200/2015 Decided on: 19.09.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Suniti Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbir Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks to assail office order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure P-11) issued by the respondents, dispensing with her services as an Anganwadi Worker. 2. Heard & considered the case file. 3. During the year 2005-2006, Anganwadi Centre was sanctioned by the respondents at Satnala, located at Sulakhar, with feeder areas of Satnala and Sulakhar. The post of Anganwadi 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2

Worker for the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre was advertised in 2007. The petitioner, along with others, applied for the post. The petitioner was selected and appointed on 08.08.2007 as an Anganwadi Worker. Her selection & appointment was challenged by respondent No. 5 by instituting an appeal in accordance with the applicable policy. The ground of appeal was that the petitioner did not belong to the feeder area of the Anganwadi Centre at Satnala. The appeal was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, and petitioner's appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was quashed and set aside. Petitioner's subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. Suniti Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2, instituted by the petitioner, was disposed of on 07.09.2010 with directions to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, to hear the matter afresh. The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, heard the matter afresh and again dismissed petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner carried the matter further before this Court in Suniti Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3, challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.11.2014. 2 CWP No. 4313/2010 decided on 07.09.2010 3 CWP No. 4321/2014 decided on 20.11.2014 3

4. Annexure P-11, impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition, whereby the respondents terminated her services as an Anganwadi Worker, is a fallout of the implementation of the judgment dated 20.11.2014 rendered in Suniti Devi3. Petitioner’s selection and appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was quashed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, and the said order was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, both in the first round as well as in the second round. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the second round was not interfered with by this Court. The writ petition, Suniti Devi3, filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, was dismissed on 20.11.2014. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can have no grievance against the termination of her services as an Anganwadi Worker by the respondents on 20.12.2014. No case is made out against the impugned order. It may be noticed that during the process of implementation of the judgment, taking into consideration respondent No. 4’s continuation as an Anganwadi Worker since 1989, and pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2015 passed in CWP No. 1005/2015 instituted by her, the official respondents permitted respondent No. 4 to discharge her duties at Anganwari Centre, Satnala. As a consequence thereof, respondent No. 5 was posted at Sulakhar. 4

During the course of hearing, it was apprised that respondent No. 4 has since retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 19th September, 2026 rohit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2200/2015 Decided on: 19.09.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Suniti Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbir Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1 to 3. Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks to assail office order dated 20.12.2014 (Annexure P-11) issued by the respondents, dispensing with her services as an Anganwadi Worker. 2. Heard & considered the case file. 3. During the year 2005-2006, Anganwadi Centre was sanctioned by the respondents at Satnala, located at Sulakhar, with feeder areas of Satnala and Sulakhar. The post of Anganwadi 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2

Worker for the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre was advertised in 2007. The petitioner, along with others, applied for the post. The petitioner was selected and appointed on 08.08.2007 as an Anganwadi Worker. Her selection & appointment was challenged by respondent No. 5 by instituting an appeal in accordance with the applicable policy. The ground of appeal was that the petitioner did not belong to the feeder area of the Anganwadi Centre at Satnala. The appeal was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, and petitioner's appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was quashed and set aside. Petitioner's subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. Suniti Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2, instituted by the petitioner, was disposed of on 07.09.2010 with directions to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, to hear the matter afresh. The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, heard the matter afresh and again dismissed petitioner’s appeal. The petitioner carried the matter further before this Court in Suniti Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3, challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.11.2014. 2 CWP No. 4313/2010 decided on 07.09.2010 3 CWP No. 4321/2014 decided on 20.11.2014 3

4. Annexure P-11, impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition, whereby the respondents terminated her services as an Anganwadi Worker, is a fallout of the implementation of the judgment dated 20.11.2014 rendered in Suniti Devi3. Petitioner’s selection and appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was quashed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, and the said order was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, both in the first round as well as in the second round. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the second round was not interfered with by this Court. The writ petition, Suniti Devi3, filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, was dismissed on 20.11.2014. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can have no grievance against the termination of her services as an Anganwadi Worker by the respondents on 20.12.2014. No case is made out against the impugned order. It may be noticed that during the process of implementation of the judgment, taking into consideration respondent No. 4’s continuation as an Anganwadi Worker since 1989, and pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2015 passed in CWP No. 1005/2015 instituted by her, the official respondents permitted respondent No. 4 to discharge her duties at Anganwari Centre, Satnala. As a consequence thereof, respondent No. 5 was posted at Sulakhar. 4

During the course of hearing, it was apprised that respondent No. 4 has since retired upon attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 19th September, 2026 rohit