JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Respondent No. 3, Smt. Jaya Devi, stood selected and appointed on 06.08.2007 as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bijni. Her appointment stood assailed before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi by the petitioner herein. Under Annexure P-2, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, allowed the appeal preferred before him by the petitioner herein, wherein a challenge stood laid to the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 as an Anganwari Worker. The reason for his accepting the appeal of the petitioner herein, challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 herein as an Anganwari Worker, stood founded upon the factum of the separation of the latter from the family of Umakant, her father-in-law, as stood purveyed in the relevant pariwar register being unauthorizedly recorded arising from the factum of its incorporation therein not standing preceded by any valid order of any competent authority. In sequel, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, under Annexure P-2 concluded of a portrayal therein of the separation of respondent No. 3 from the family of her father-in-law standing occurred, being sapped of its vigor rendering interferable her appointment as an Anganwari Worker. However, it is apparent on a reading of paragraph 3 of Annexure P-2 of the said separation of respondent No. 3 from her father-in-law, as reflected in the apt pariwar register, standing incorporated by the then Secretary of Tunj Panchayat who, however, remained unexamined. For want of examination by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, of the then Secretary of Tunj Panchayat who thereupon may have purveyed to him the authorization accorded to him by the competent officer for carving out a separation of respondent No. 3 from her father-in-law, renders legally flawed the rendition of the Deputy Commissioner in Annexure P-2 of the aforesaid reflection in the apt pariwar register of respondent No. 3 standing separated from her father-in-law standing unwarrantedly reflected. For reiteration the apposite authorization held by the then Secretary of Tunj Panchayat would only have lent sustenance to his recording in the apposite pariwar register of respondent No. 3 herein hence standing warrantedly depicted therein to stand separated from her father-in-law, one Shri Umakant besides would also have precluded the learned Deputy Commissioner to, arbitrarily even when the aforesaid apposite material for the reasons aforestated stood unadduced before him, conclude qua the separation of respondent No. 3 herein being unwarranted necessitating the cancellation of her appointment. 2. 2. The learned Divisional Commissioner while dealing with an appeal, standing preferred thereupon before him at the instance of the aggrieved respondent No. 3 herein, without adverting to the aforesaid infirmity gripping Annexure P-2 arising from non-examination of the then Secretary of Tunj Panchayat has proceeded to impute reliance to ration card and report of Gram Panchayat Bijni for thereupon concluding of respondent No. 3 herein having proven hers standing separated from her father-in-law one Shri Umakant. 3. The discarding of the aforesaid apposite material by the learned Divisional Commissioner, which yet for reasons aforestated besides with the aforesaid constraints besetting it rendered any reliance thereupon to be grossly untenable, had led the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, to commit a gross error in concluding thereupon qua respondent No. 3 having stood separated from her father-in-law. 4. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, having scored off from consideration the apt and germane material rather his having taken into consideration inapt and discardable material for setting at rest the controversy, has committed a gross illegality and impropriety. In sequel, the orders comprised in Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who shall examine the then Secretary of Tunj Panchayat, who in the relevant pariwar register recorded the separation of respondent No. 3 herein from her father-in-law one Shri Umakant besides unearth from him qua the reflection in the apt pariwar register qua the separation of respondent No. 3 from her father-in-law being a sequel to his holding an authorization from a competent officer whereafter he shall decide the matter afresh. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of so also pending application(s), if any.