Disposed¶22

Anjana Kumari v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2026CWP/3371/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anjana Kumari v State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 3371 of 2014, decided 07.03.2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla), coram Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Subject: eligibility dispute over selection of respondent No.5 as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Darbathu-2, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi; challenge to Selection Committee order of November 2013. Outcome: proceedings closed without adjudication on merits as petitioner married and no longer resident in the feeder area; neither relief granted nor merits decided. Advocates: Subhash Chander (petitioner); Rajat Chauhan, AAG (respondents 1-4); Vikrant Thakur (respondent 5).

What did the court decide?

None; the proceedings were closed without adjudication on the merits and no direction was issued for quashing the impugned order or appointing the petitioner. ¶22

Anjana Kumari Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:HHC:6183

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 3371 of 2014 Decided on : 07.03.2026

¶4

Smt. Anjana Kumari

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶14

“i) That the impugned order dated November, 2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Selection Committee whereby the wrong and illegal selection of respondent No.5 has been upheld may kindly be quashed and set

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

2026:HHC:6183

¶18

aside as the respondent No.5 was not at all eligible for appointment as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Darbathu-2, in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶19

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Center, Darbathu-2, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.”

¶20

When this case was taken up for consideration

¶21

today, learned counsel for respondent No.5 pointed out that the petition otherwise has lost its efficacy as the petitioner now stands married and she is not residing in the feeder area of the Anganwari Centre, Darbathu-2, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

¶22

In light of the fact that this could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as obviously the petition has lost its efficacy, the proceedings are closed, without adjudication on merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶24

March 07, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)

Anjana Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjana Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Joginder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anita Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amit Kumar Kashyap Vs Union of India

Ganesha Devi Vs State of Hp

Jai Lal Vs State of Hp and Others