IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.159 of 2006 SMT.MINTAR KUMARI, wife of Ashok Kumar, resident of Village Belahari (Chamar Toli), PO Belahari, PS Belaganj, District Gaya Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner, Magadah Division, Gaya 3. District Magistrate, Gaya 4. Child Development Project Officer, Gaya 5. Smt. Gayatri Kumari, W/o Shri Ashok Das, resident of Vill. Shankarpur, P.o. Belaganj, District Gaya ..Respondents- Respondents ----------- 06- 28.6.2010 Heard Mr. Ambar Nath Banerji for the appellant, and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.12. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna is directed against the order dated 23.1.2006, passed by a learned single Judge in CWJC No.12858 of 2004 (Smt. Mintar Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The learned single Judge has upheld the order of the concerned authorities, whereby the petitioner has been disqualified from consideration for appointment as Anwanwari Sevika on the ground that her husband is a fair-price shop dealer. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner’s husband was at the relevant point of time a fair-price shop dealer. It is well known that this dealership is assigned by the State Government for sale and distribution of foodgrains at subsidized rates. The petitioner applied for the post of Angwanwari Sevika. She has been disqualified from 2 consideration because of her husband’s fair-price shop dealership. An Anganwari Sevika is appointed by the State Government to provide mid-day meals to children of a panchayat. The Scheme is governed by the policy decision of the State Government issued under the signature of the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, a photocopy whereof is marked Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in the present appeal, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ (M- ) yksd lsodksa (eqf[k;k iapk;r lfefr ds lnL;@okMZ lnL;@ftyk ifj"kn~ ds lnL; vkfn Lo;a ;k muds fjLrsnkj ) fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvks (tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodszrk ?kqeUrq fdjklu rsy ds forjd (Dealer) vUrjfoHkkxh; Mkd[kkuk dehZ (Entra- departmental Post Office Employee bR;knh) ljdkjh v}Zljdkjh lsodks ds fj'rsnkj ;Fkk csVh@iRuh@iq=o/kq@ikS=o/kq dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugh fd;k tk;sxkA ¼p½ lsfodk ,o lgkf;dk vkil es fdlh izdkj ls lacaf/k@fjLrsnkj ugh gksxsa] ;Fkk lkl&cgq] uun&HkkHkh] cgu HkrhthAÞ It is thus evident that no person can be appointed as Anganwari Sevika if her husband is the dealer of a fair-price shop. We are clearly of the view that this has advisedly been introduced in the Scheme because these employment opportunities are being generated to provide opportunities to the local populace. The aim and object of the Scheme is that every family should have one bread-winner. In that view of the matter, 3 the condition incorporated in the Scheme extracted hereinabove cannot be faulted. 3. We must consider the objection raised by learned counsel for the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge. Respondent no.5 to the writ proceeding (respondent no.5 herein also) was instead appointed as Anganwari Sevika. Her husband was the owner of a shop. The Scheme obviously does not apply to such person because he was the owner of a private business. The Scheme covers only fair-price shop dealers which is a government largess. We entirely agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the aforesaid clause did not apply and did not disqualify respondent no.5. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl