Chanchala Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2026 passed in CWP No. 1508 of 2017, whereby the writ petition preferred by present respondent No. 4 has been allowed, thereby the appointment of the appellant as a ASHA Worker vide Annexure P-4 has been quashed, and an order of recovery of salary paid to the appellant has been passed on account of the arbitrary manner in which the appellant had been appointed.

¶14

The appeal pertains to a selection process for selection of an ASHA Worker in Gram Panchayat Chukku under Block Padhar of District Mandi. The interview for appointment of

¶15

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

¶16

-2-

¶17

an ASHA Worker in the aforesaid Gram Panchayat had been held on 01.03.2017. Therein, besides the appellant and respondent No.

¶18

4, 12 candidates had participated. At the interview, the duly constituted Selection Committee, in terms of the criteria laid down, had awarded marks.

¶19

Annexure P-4 (Page 46 of the paper book) demonstrates the way and manner in which marks were allotted to the candidates who had appeared for the interview held on 01.03.2017. A perusal of Annexure P-4 reflects that objectively marks were to be allotted on account of experience. Other than the aforesaid objectively marks were to be awarded on account of the fact that the party applying was a widow, divorcee, or deserted individual. Besides the aforesaid, marks were to be objectively awarded to candidates who belonged to the reserved category. Other than the aforesaid, marks were to be objectively awarded on account of local residence of the candidate. Last but not the least, marks were to be awarded subjectively on the basis of an interview conducted by the members of the Committee. The grievance of respondent No. 4 (writ petitioner) was qua allocation of high marks to the present appellant under the head “interview”. 4. According to the petitioner, high marks for the interview had been accorded to the appellant on account of the fact that, in the case of the appellant, there was a U.O. Note

¶20

-3-

¶21

issued by the Health Minister directing a favourable consideration of the candidature of the appellant at the interview.

¶22

The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, observed that on objective considerations, the present respondent No. 4 (writ petitioner) had scored more marks and that, with the sole aim and intent of obviating the difference of marks inter se the present appellant and respondent No. 4, high marks were awarded under the head ‘interview’ to the appellant on account of the U.O. Note issued by the concerned Health Minister directing the concerned officials to favourably/sympathetically consider the case of the appellant for appointment as an ASHA Worker

¶23

No fault can be found in the view taken by the learned Single Judge insofar as the findings returned qua allocation of marks at the interview in favour of the appellant is concerned. Similarly, no fault can be found with the order quashing the appointment of the appellant. However, insofar as recovery of salary paid to the appellant for the work done is concerned, the same needs to be set aside for the sole reason that the appellant post having being appointed had worked & it is for the work done that remuneration had been paid to the appellant.

¶24