IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 311 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.4.2009 Promila Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 9th January, 2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, whereby the selection of the petitioner to the post of Anganwari Centre Dabla has been set-aside. The petitioner was selected as Anganwari worker at the aforesaid centre and joined as such on 7th August, 2007. Her selection was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 only on the ground that respondent No.5 had not placed on record 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 any documentary record to show that the husband of the petitioner was working as a Dentist. The respondent No.5 then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the fact that petitioner’s husband was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dabla and was getting honourarium of Rs.1000/- per month being Pradhan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the certificate issued by the Tehsildar of the Gram Panchayat in respect to the income of the petitioner and her husband and in the note appended to the said certificate it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner’s husband is working as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. We are, therefore, in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that there is no concealment of the fact that the husband of the petitioner was working as Pradhan. However, we find that this certificate still hides a lot. Though in the certificate it is stated that the petitioner’s husband is a Pradhan but it is not mentioned that he as Pradhan was getting honourarium of Rs.1000/- per month. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the honourarium is taken into consideration the income only comes to Rs.1,000/- per month and there is nothing on the record to show that the income exceeds Rs.12,000/- per annum. We are not impressed with this argument. It has come on record that the children of the petitioner are studying in DAD public school, Ghumarwin. This Court can take judicial note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner, who is a Pradhan, must atleast 3 be earning one rupee in the entire year to take his income beyond the permissible limit. The entire Anganwari worker scheme has been framed in a manner to ensure that it is the ladies belonging to the poorest families who are granted employment under this scheme. Time and again we are coming across cases where candidates having high family income are given appointment under one pretext or the other. This case is also one of those cases where a person belonging to a well off family was given this appointment. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition. The petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 30, 2009, ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™