Saroj Bala vs State of H.P. and others

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent as Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre Chuhuwal. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent does not belong to the feeding area being not a resident. The competent authority pursuant to direction issued by this Court has looked into the matter and has come to a factual finding that the 4th respondent has been residing for the last more than 25 years at village Ghansot, which is a feeding area of the Anganwari Centre. The decision is also based on the ground of limitation. Though the petitioner had attempted to make out case on limitation from the date of knowledge, the fact remains that both the petitioner and the 4th respondent participated in the selection process on 7.8.2007 and it appears that the private respondent had also joined the duty. If that be so, the petitioner cannot rely on the date of knowledge based on the communication from the authority. This Court in several cases has also held that the Appellate Authority does not have any power to condone the delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the order, Annexure P-1 dated 12.8.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition is hence dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.