WPSS/849/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 2617 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSS/849/2026 on 2 April, 2026

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2026:UHC:2340
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSS/849/2026
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Ms. Geetanjali Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. According to the petitioner, she was wrongly denied appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri even though she is a divorcee and had scored more marks than respondent no. 5 (Ms. Lalita).

4. Learned State Counsel, however submits that petitioner did not upload the divorce decree along with her application and she simply submitted an affidavit that she is a divorcee, therefore, she was not given benefit, which is available to a divorcee in the selection.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which according to her, is a list of defective applications. She submits that since petitioner's name did not figure in that list, therefore, petitioner had no occasion to approach the authorities by submitting the divorce decree.

6. Learned State Counsel, however submits that without divorce decree also, petitioner's candidature was being considered for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri, and in that list, names of only such candidates were included, whose applications were 2026:UHC:2340

defective and on account of such defect, their candidature would have been ignored.

7. Be that as it may, since petitioner has raised several issues in this writ petition, therefore, instead of going into all the issues, as raised by the petitioner, this Court thinks that ends of justice would met, if petitioner is permitted to approach the competent authority by making representation.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make fresh representation to District Programme Officer. If she makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within eight weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that the selected candidate (Ms. Lalita) shall also be heard before taking any decision in the matter.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d

CHANDRA 3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6E D9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.02 17:50:38 +05'30'