LPA No.141 of 2008 3.12.2008 Present: Mr. Onkar Jairath, counsel for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner has been dismissed. The grievance of the appellant is that the income of respondent No.6 exceeds Rs.12,000/- per-annum and her age is 34 years, therefore, respondent No.6 cannot be treated as orphan. The learned counsel for the appellant could not show the meaning of orphan. It has been further contended on behalf of the appellant that one can only be considered an orphan till he is minor and at the time of the application the respondent No.6 was not minor, therefore, she cannot be treated as orphan. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to show any dictionary meaning which supports his case. The learned Advocate General has brought to our notice that minor girl cannot apply for the post of Anganwari Worker/helper. Therefore, a lady who is eligible to apply according to her age and has lost her parents, is to be treated as orphan as far as the appointment of Anganwari Worker is concerned. In the circumstances the petitioner claimed two marks and in the process challenged the appointment of respondent No.6. However, both the Courts below have decided in favour of respondent No.6 and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/petitioner. Further it was held that respondent No.6 should have been given two marks as being orphan. We find force in the judgment of two Courts below, which has been upheld by a reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, no interference is warranted, the appeal is dismissed. ( Jagdish Bhalla), CJ ( Kuldip Singh) J. December 3, 2008 (sks)