IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4554/2010 Decided on:12.8.2010. Smt. Seema Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Amicus Curiae for respondent No.5. Justice Rajiv Sharma,J. (oral) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in view of guidelines notified on 11.4.2007, the process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Laleta, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra was commenced. Petitioner and respondent No.5 participated in the selection process. However, the Selection Committee recommended the name of petitioner for the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre Laleta. Appointment of the petitioner was assailed by respondent No.5 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The Additional Deputy Commissioner returned Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 a finding that the income of petitioner was more than Rs. 25,200/- per annum, which was more than permissible limit and on this score the appointment of petitioner was set aside vide order dated 18.3.2009. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same on 23.6.2010. 2. Mr. Digvijay Singh has strenuously argued that the orders passed by both the authorities below are contrary to principles of law and are not based on correct appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ajay Sharma have supported the orders dated 18.3.2009 and 23.6.2010, respectively. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It will be pertinent at this stage to quote para 4 of the notification dated 11.4.2007, which reads thus: “4. Eligibility Criteria Only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari Worker or Helper who are: a) Resident of the village (in case of Rural Area)/ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area; b) For Anganwadi worker minimum qualification shall be Matric or equivalent and for Helper minimum Primary. c) Age between 21-45 years; d) From whose family no one is in Government /Semi Government employment/service. e) Those belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st Janualy, 2004. 3 f) Those whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 8000 per annum to be certified/countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.” 6. A bare perusal of para 4 of notification dated 11.4.2007 reveals that only those candidates are eligible from whose family no one is in Government/Semi Government employment/service and the income of the family does not exceed Rs. 8,000/- per annum, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 12,000/-. Petitioner has admitted in her statement made before the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 20.8.2008 that her husband was employed as Panchayat Secretary. Since the husband of the petitioner was employed as Panchayat Secretary, she has incurred disqualification as per sub-paras (d) of para 4 of the notification dated 11.4.2007. Moreover, concurrent findings have been returned by both the authorities below that the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12,000/-. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner has got the matter inquired through the agency of Tehsildar, Shahpur. The report of the Patwari Halqua indicated the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 25,200/- per annum. Petitioner’s father-in-law Sh. Fetta Ram owns 1-16-82 hectares of land. The income from the landed property is more than Rs. 18,000/- per annum. 7. We are of the considered opinion that there is neither any illegality nor any procedural irregularity in the orders passed by both the authorities below whereby concurrent findings have been returned to the effect that the income of the petitioner was more than 12,000/. Since the husband of the petitioner was Panchayat Secretary, she was not eligible to be considered for the post of Anganwari Worker. 4 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 12.8.2010. *awasthi*