Allowed

Ranjana Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Sept 2026CWP/1398/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, appointed as an Anganwari Worker in 2007, faced a challenge to her selection by an affected candidate (respondent No. 6). After nearly 20 years of continuous service and with the challenger withdrawing the objection, the High Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents to let the petitioner continue in service in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to continue serving as Anganwari Worker in accordance with law.

Ranjana Devi Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1398 of 2016

¶3

Decided on: 19.09.2026

¶4

_________________________________________________________________ Ranjana Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of HP and Ors …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Parth Sagar, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5 Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate, for respondent No.6.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Petitioner is serving as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Soyal under Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) Project, Chopal, District Shimla w.e.f. 11.08.2007. Her selection and appointment was questioned by respondent No.6. There has been several rounds of litigation pursuant to the challenge laid by respondent No.6

¶10

to the selection and appointment of the petitioner.

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶12

¶13

Nonetheless, petitioner has continued to serve as Anganwari worker continuously ever since her appointment. Around 20

¶14

years have gone by since the appointment of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6, under

¶15

instructions submits that challenge laid by respondent No. 6 to the petitioner's selection and appointment as Anganwari worker be permitted to be withdrawn.

¶16

3. Under the interim order passed in this writ petition on 30.05.2016, operation of impugned orders had been stayed, and, consequently, petitioner continued to serve as Anganwari Worker.

¶17

4. Considering the above facts, more particularly, continuation of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker w.e.f. 11.08.2007, withdrawing of challenge to petitioner's selection and appointment by the affected candidate i.e., respondent No. 6, petitioner's present age around 44 years, this writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to let the petitioner continue to serve as Anganwari worker in accordance with law.

¶18

¶19

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶20

to stand disposed of.

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶22

September 19,2026

¶23

R.Atal

Ranjana Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases