WPSS No. 240/2011 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Mr. Arvind K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State/respondents and perused the record. On 29.12.2007, the petitioner was appointed as Aganbari Karyakatri and was being paid honorarium @ ` 2,500/- per month. The work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. On 03.02.2008, the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Roorkee/respondent no.4 wrote letter to the petitioner informing her that she had filed wrong BPL certificate. The petitioner replied the letter on 15.04.2008 and alongwith her reply, she also filed the copy of Pariwar Register as well as the list of BPL cardholders. Thereafter, one Smt. Yashodhra Devi lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the Assistant Development Officer (Cooperative), Vikas Khand Roorkee was appointed as Inquiry Officer. On 21.06.2008 the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report indicating therein that there is no force in the complaint. On 11.02.2009, when the appointment of the petitioner was again stayed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 160 of 2009 (SS) before this court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.05.2011 directing the Appellate Authority to take a decision in the matter by passing a speaking order, after hearing to all the concerned parties. In compliance of said order of this Court, the respondent no.4 passed order on 18.02.1012 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and canceling her selection/ appointment. Being aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given 0.5 quality point marks, whereas one Smt. Yashodhra was awarded 0.3 quality point marks, and thus the petitioner has valid right to be appointed on the post of Aganbari Karyakatri. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the Ration Card, in which the annual income of the petitioner’s family is shown as ` 18,000/-. On the basis of the Ration Card, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner is a poor person and comes under the below poverty line (BPL). The respondents have filed counter affidavit with the assertion that since earlier selection of the petitioner was made considering her as a candidate belonging to BPL family, but in the inquiry conducted by the Block Development Officer, it was found that at no point of time, the family of the petitioner was BPL, therefore on the basis of this fact, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Committee. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any document showing that the petitioner is BPL. Only material, which he submitted that the annual income of the petitioner’s family is ` 18,000/-. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the annual income of petitioner is ` 18,000/-, is not sufficient for treating her under the BPL family. This certificate has been issued by the Village Pradhan. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent no.4. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Stay application (CLMA No. 1552/12) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 04.10.2012 NCM: