IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 967 of 2008. Decided on: 02.07.2009. _______________________________________________________ Smt. Prabha Sharma … Petitioner. Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.S. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Ritu Mankotia, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Kandholla, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. Her appointment was assailed by respondent No.3 on two grounds, firstly; she was having more income than prescribed in the scheme and secondly; her family was not separated before 1.1.2004. The Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal on 4.3.2008. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. He dismissed the appeal on 17.5.2008. Mr. K.S. Thakur has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, the petitioner’s family had separated in the year 1998. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Ms. Ritu Mankotia, Advocate argued that the family of the petitioner was separated on 2.7.2006. They have supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner dated 4.3.2008 and 17.5.2008. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 11.8.2007. The appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker is regulated by way of notification dated 11.4.2007. Sub clause (e) of Clause (4) of the policy reads thus: “(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 Ist January, 2004.” The appointment of the petitioner was assailed on the ground that her family was separated on 2.7.2006. The case of the petitioner before the authorities was that her family was separated in the year 1998. The matter was got enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla from the Tehsildar, Chopal. According to the report of the Tehsildar, the petitioner’s family was living jointly up to 2.7.2006. According to the report of the Tehsildar, as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order, she has concealed her income as well. The Divisional Commissioner has affirmed the view of the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.5.2008. It is apparent from order dated 17.5.2008 that respondent No.3 has obtained copy of Parivar Register on 30.4.2008. In this copy, the 3 petitioner had been shown separated on 2.7.2006 vide Gram Sabha resolution No. 7. She has also ordered the matter to be enquired by the Deputy Commissioner about the veracity of the Parivar Register (undated). This Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner to hold an inquiry to ascertain on which date the family of the petitioner was separated. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has produced the copy of the inquiry report for perusal of the Court. I have gone through the report and the documents annexed with the report. A bare perusal of the report reveals that the family of the petitioner was separated on 2.7.2006 and not in the year 1998 as claimed by the petitioner. The authorities have come to the right conclusion that the entry has been made in the Parivar Register earlier to benefit the petitioner unauthorizedly. The document relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. Annexure P-2 is undated. This document has been rightly discarded by the authorities below. Consequently, in view of the observations made above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as Divisional Commissioner. The family of the petitioner was separated on 2.7.2006. The petitioner has concealed her income as per the report of the Tehsildar, Chopal which was duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 02, 2009. (cr)