Allowed

Radhika v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Sept 2026CWP/358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner was selected as an Anganwadi Worker after an interview, but the Deputy Commissioner set aside her selection, deeming the award of full interview marks irrational. The High Court held that the Interview Committee's assessment of candidates' performance in viva voce is within its exclusive domain and cannot be re-evaluated by an appellate authority or court. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order and reinstated the petitioner's appointment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner's selection and appointment as Anganwadi Worker is restored.

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

Outcome

The impugned order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner's selection and appointment as Anganwadi Worker is restored.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Deputy Commissioner could quash the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker on the ground that the Interview Committee's award of full marks was irrational and created suspicion. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Shilling, under the ICDS Project, Pooh, District Kinnaur, following interviews held on 17.05.2016. Respondent No. 4 challenged the selection before the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur, who, by order dated 25.02.2017, set aside the petitioner's appointment. The Deputy Commissioner held that awarding the petitioner full 3 marks for the interview while giving respondent No. 4 only 1 mark was irrational and created suspicion. The petitioner filed a writ petition. During pendency, she continued in service for about 10 years under an interim order. Two conflicting replies were filed by the State: the Deputy Commissioner supported his order, while the Director, Women and Child Development, defended the Selection Committee's discretion. The High Court held that the assessment and evaluation of a candidate's performance in a viva voce is the exclusive domain of the Interview Committee. Courts, in judicial review, cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or act as an appellate body to judge whether marks are excessive or not corresponding to performance. The Court relied on Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2023) 17 SCC 147, which establishes this principle. The factual claim that respondent No. 4 was denied an experience mark was also found incorrect, as the record showed the petitioner had been awarded that mark. The petitioner, having emerged more meritorious, was justly selected. The impugned order was quashed and set aside.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 358/2017 Decided on: 19.09.2026

¶3

Radhika …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶6

……………………………… *Coram* *Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewa* Whether approved for rep	……………………………………………. *l Dua, Judge.* orting?¹
For the petitioner:	Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates.
For the respondents:	Mr. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents/State.
	Mr. Rajender Singh,Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶8

The interviews for the post of Anganwadi Worker at the Anganwadi Centre, Shilling, under the ICDS Project, Pooh, District Kinnaur, were conducted on 17.05.2016. The petitioner was selected as an Anganwadi Worker. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur. Vide order dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure P-4), impugned herein, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner. The appellate authority held that three marks were stipulated for the interview; The Committee awarded only 1 out of 3 marks to respondent No. 4, whereas full marks, i.e., 3 marks, were awarded to the petitioner. The Deputy

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Commissioner construed this as irrational awarding of marks, which created suspicion, and consequently quashed the selection of the petitioner. The appointment of the next candidate, who was first in the waiting list, i.e., respondent No. 4, was ordered. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

¶12

Pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition on 07.03.2017, the petitioner is continuing to serve as an Anganwadi Worker and has by now completed about 10 years of service.

¶13

Interestingly, two sets of replies have been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 to the writ petition. The first reply was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 (pages 28 to 32 of the paper book) on the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur (respondent No. 2), contesting the writ petition, affirming and reiterating his order dated 25.02.2017, whereby the selection and appointment of the petitioner was quashed.

¶14

There is yet another reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 on the affidavit of the Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh, favouring the petitioner. In terms of this reply (pages 33 to 46 of the paper book), there was no correlation between the marks obtained by the petitioner in her educational qualifications and the marks obtained in the interview. It was for the Selection Committee to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and exercise its wisdom in awarding marks to the participating candidates.

¶15

¶16

The assertion of the Director, Women and Child

¶17

Development, Himachal Pradesh, is in consonance with the law. It is within the domain of the Interview Committee to award marks to candidates based upon their performance in the interview.

¶18

It will be appropriate to refer to Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors.

¶19

Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.² , wherein the Apex Court held that while exercising the power of judicial review Court cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether marks awarded by the Selection Committee in viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test: -

¶20

“37. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post-graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water.”

¶21

2 (2023) 17 SCC 147

¶22

¶23

During the hearing of the case, an assertion was also made for respondent No. 4 that she had not been awarded 1 mark for experience on account of her having previously worked as an Anganwadi Helper. This factual contention has been demonstrated to be incorrect by the petitioner. Along with the rejoinder, the petitioner has placed on record the result of the selection process for the post of Anganwadi Worker (Annexure P-6). A perusal whereof reflects that the petitioner has been awarded 1 mark for her experience. This position has been admitted to be correct and is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

¶24

In view of the above, the petitioner, having emerged as more meritorious than respondent No. 4, was justly selected as an Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.02.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶26

19^th September, 2026(rohit)

Radhika v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases