CWP No.1590 of 2008. 8.9.2008. Present: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. The appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre, Parnali was assailed by respondent No.4. The two authorities below after considering the material on record have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had received Rs.5,79,800/- on account of compensation from Kol Dam authorities and for that reason the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre, Parnali. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the petitioner had left no amount out of the award amount when she was appointed as Anganwari Helper. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the award amount was spent on the treatment of father of the petitioner, construction of residential house, treatment of her daughter and the treatment of the husband of the petitioner, but no account for such treatment has been placed on record. The two authorities below have decided the matter on the basis of the material on record. No ground for interference is made out by the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed and so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 8th September, 2008 (tr). (Kuldip Singh), J.