JUDGMENT : (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) CMP No. 12746 of 2022 with CMP(M) No. 1226 of 2022 1. By way of these two applications, a prayer has been made for restoration of the main writ petition by recalling order dated 02.03.2020, vide which, the main writ petition was dismissed in default and for condonation of delay in filing the application. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that it will be in the interest of justice, in case, these applications are allowed and after condoning the delay, the applicant/petitioner is allowed to make submissions on merit. Ordered accordingly, Order dated 02.03.2020 is recalled and the petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. Delay in filing the application is condoned. The applications stand disposed of accordingly. CWP No. 895 of 2017 3. With the consent of the parties, the case is heard and is being disposed of today itself. 4. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “A. That writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner as anganwadi worker and other consequential benefits. B. That writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued to quash the Annexure P- 5, i.e. the order passed by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner in Case No. 7/8 of 2016 whereby he had allowed the appeal of Respondent No. 5 and set aside the appointment of the petitioner.” 5. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are in a very narrow compass. Selection process was initiated by the department concerned for appointment of Aanganwari Worker in Aanganwari Centre, Chakkan, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan. Interviews for the post were held on 09.08.2016. The petitioner alongwith respondent No. 5, who has been proceeded against ex parte and other candidates, participated in the process of selection. The petitioner was selected by the department as Aanganwari Worker for Aanganwari Centre in issue. 6. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by way of an appeal, as is envisaged in the policy concerned by the private respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. The appeal was instituted on 19th August, 2016, within the period of 15 days, as is prescribed in the scheme/policy. 6. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by way of an appeal, as is envisaged in the policy concerned by the private respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. The appeal was instituted on 19th August, 2016, within the period of 15 days, as is prescribed in the scheme/policy. In terms of order dated 30.03.2017, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Solan, appointment of the petitioner was set aside and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 7. Mr. Mukul Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioner, though by placing reliance upon Annexure R-1, appended with the reply filed by the respondents, has argued that a perusal thereof would demonstrate that contemplation therein was with regard to the frozen list of families and the same has to be construed as family of the petitioner de hors the fact whether the petitioner had contracted marriage on the said date or not (but this Court is of the considered view that the said submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is meritless). Learned Counsel also argued that notification dated 29th February, 2016, could not have been applied retrospectively and therefore also, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, as notification dated 29.02.2016, was issued after the marriage of the petitioner on 25.02.2016, therefore, she was duly eligible, having become a member of the family of her husband before the issuance of notification, and therefore also, order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner is not legally sustainable. He has further argued that otherwise also, eligibility of a candidate is to be seen as on the date of advertisement and it is not in dispute that as on the said date, she was the member of family of her husband Shri Pradeep Kumar. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and petition be allowed. 8. He has further argued that otherwise also, eligibility of a candidate is to be seen as on the date of advertisement and it is not in dispute that as on the said date, she was the member of family of her husband Shri Pradeep Kumar. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and petition be allowed. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the respondent-Department has submitted that the order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted with for the reason that the petitioner has failed to establish her ordinary residence in one of the feeder areas of the Aanganwari Centre concerned before the Appellate Authority and further as in terms of notification dated 29.02.2016, the eligibility criteria was to be on the basis of definition of family/frozen list of members of the families as it was on 1st January of the recruitment year, therefore also, there is no infirmity in the order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner as the petitioner admittedly was not a member of the family of her husband as on 01.01.2016. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 10. A perusal of the order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Solan, demonstrates that the appointment of the petitioner was set aside on the ground that in terms of the scheme, which governed the appointment of Aanganwari Workers and Aanganwari Helpers, the candidate ought to be an ordinary resident of feeder area as on 01.01.2016 and should be a member of the family as per the frozen list of families as on 01.01.2016. However, in the case in hand, the petitioner was married to Shri Pradeep Kumar, who in fact was the resident of the feeder area of the Aanganwari Centre concerned, in the month of February, 2016 and she became a member of the family of her husband as per Parivar Register of the Gram Panchayat, in which, village Chakkan is located, on 15.03.2016. Learned Deputy Commissioner, thus held that as the petitioner was not the member of the family of Shri Pradeep Kumar as on the cut-of-date, i.e. 01.01.2016 or before said date, therefore, she was not entitled for being considered to be appointed as an Aanganwari Worker in Aanganwari Centre, Chakkan, as before her marriage, the petitioner was neither an ordinary resident of the feeder area of the Aanganwari Centre concerned nor she was the member of the family of Shri Pradeep Kumar. On these grounds, the appointment of the petitioner has been set aside by learned Deputy Commissioner. 11. The post in issue admittedly was advertised vide Annexure P-1, dated 30th June, 2016. It was mentioned in the advertisement that in order to be eligible to apply for the post in issue, the candidate concerned was to inter alia fulfill the following eligibility criteria: (a) the candidate ought to be an ordinary resident of the feeder area of the Aanganwari Centre concerned as on 01.01.2016 and the separation of the family must have taken place before 01.01.2016; (b) age of the candidate as on 01.01.2016 should be between 21 to 45 years; (c) the candidate must possess the minimum qualification of 10+2 or equivalent and if no candidate was available from the feeder area with said qualification, then the qualification was to be reduced in terms thereof; and (d) the annual income of the family of the applicant should not be more than 35,000/-, duly certified by the officer referred to in the advertisement. Thus the advertisement itself was self speaking that in order to be eligible to apply to the post in issue, the candidate ought to be an ordinary resident of the feeder area of the Aanganwari Centre concerned as on 01.01.2016. 12. Now in this backdrop, if one peruses notification dated 29th February, 2016, the same demonstrates that it was stated in Column No. 5 thereof, which relates to advertisement of vacancies that the frozen list of families would be as on 1st January of the recruitment year and same will be displayed on the Notice Boards of all offices referred to therein to enable eligible women members of these families to apply for posts/vacancies. Incidentally, there is no challenge in the present petition to the said condition of the notification. 13. Incidentally, there is no challenge in the present petition to the said condition of the notification. 13. Be that as it may, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner as on 01.01.2016 was not an ordinary resident of feeder area of the Aanganwari Centre concerned and further as it is not much in dispute that the petitioner was married to a resident of feeder area of the Aangainwari Centre concerned, on 25.02.2016, this Court is of the considered view that until and unless, the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria contemplated in notification dated 29th February, 2016, read harmoniously with the advertisement Annexure P-1, she could not have applied for the post in issue. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the notification was not having effect upon the petitioner as she was married on 25.02.2016, is without merit for the reason that it is not the date of marriage, which determines the eligibility of a candidate in terms of the advertisement as well as notification dated 29th February, 2016 as the determination was on the basis of frozen list of members of the families as on 1st January of the recruitment year, which year in the present case is 2016 and the cut of date thus is 01.01.2016. 14. The respondent-Department in fact has not applied notification dated 29th February, 2016, retrospectively as argued and the Deputy Commissioner concerned has correctly set aside the appointment of the petitioner as she was recommended for appointment against the post in issue in violation of the provisions of the advertisement and as also notification dated 29.02.2016. Further contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the status of the family of her husband as it was on 01.01.2016 independently ought to have been taken into consideration de hors the fact that as to whether the petitioner on the said date was married or not is also without merit for the simple reason that until and unless, the petitioner, as on the date in issue i.e. 01.01.2016, either was independently fulfilling the eligibility criteria or on the strength of her marriage etc. had gained eligibility, by no stretch of imagination, she could have been considered eligible for appointment against the post in issue. had gained eligibility, by no stretch of imagination, she could have been considered eligible for appointment against the post in issue. In other words, the status of the family of husband of the petitioner as on 01.01.2016 in the absence of the petitioner being a member of that family was immaterial. 15. As far as the assessment of the eligibility of the petitioner is concerned and when the cut-of-date for determining the frozen list of families in its wisdom was stated to be 1st January of the recruitment year by the department concerned, then the eligibility but natural has to be assessed on the touchstone of said date and not on the touchstone of date of marriage or on the touchstone of date of issuance of advertisement. Though, it is not much in dispute that eligibility of a candidate ordinarily has to be seen as on the last date of receipt of applications as per advertisement but then the same principle applies where advertisement per se is silent with regard to the date of eligibility of a candidate. In the present case, the advertisement itself contained the date to be 1st January, 2016, and therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that eligibility ought to have been taken into consideration as from the date of advertisement has no legs to stand upon. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as this Court does not finds any infirmity with the impugned order, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.