Disposed¶¶4

Anu Rani v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Nov 2025WPSS/1657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganbari Karyakarti; Anganwari Centre; selection cancelled without hearing; representation to Appellate Authority; appeal by respondent no. 4; 19 marks v 18 marks; same revenue village; Hamlet residency v revenue village; Government Policy; Village Raisi, District Haridwar; Uttarakhand High Court; WPSS/1657/2025; 2025:UHC:9693; Manoj Kumar Tiwari; disposed of 03.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Appellate Authority; if lodged within one week, the Appellate Authority to decide it within two weeks thereafter, after hearing respondent no. 4. ¶¶4

Anu Rani Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:9693

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS/1657/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
			1. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. According to petitioner, she was selected for appointment as_Anganbari_ Karyakarti in Village Raisi, District Haridwar, but her selection was subsequently cancelled on an appeal made by respondent no. 4. In her appeal, respondent no. 4 had contended that she was not selected even though she had scored more marks than the petitioner. In her appeal, respondent no. 4 further stated that her score of marks in the selection was 19, while petitioner had scored only 18 marks and both of them belong to the same revenue village.
			4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not heard before cancelling her selection. He, however, submits that both, petitioner and respondent no. 4, are resident of Village Raisi. He, however, submits that petitioner is resident of the concerned Hamlet for which_Anganwari Centre_was established. Thus, he submits that petitioner has a better claim than respondent no. 4 for appointment.
			5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that as per Government Policy,

¶3

2025:UHC:9693

¶4

one should be resident of the concerned revenue village and there is no further requirement of resident of a particular Hamlet. He thus submits that contention raised by petitioner that she has a better claim merely because she is a resident of concerned Hamlet, is contrary to Government Policy. 5. Be that as it may, since petitioner’s selection was set aside, without hearing her, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Appellate Authority. If she makes representation within one week from today, the Appellate Authority shall take decision thereupon, within two weeks thereafter, after hearing respondent no. 4.

¶5

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 03.11.2025

¶6

Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.11.03 02:13:23 -08'00'

¶7

2025:UHC:9693

Anu Rani v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu Rani v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Priti Shah Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand

Santosh Tamta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vikas Rawat Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Uves Raja Vs State of Uttarakhand