IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17441 of 2009 LALITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner:- Mr. R. Griyaghey & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Abinash Kumar A.C. to G.P-I ----------- 02 22/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sewika. On allegations being made of her ineligibility, the matter was enquired into by the District Magistrate. By order dated 13.8.2008 it was held that her husband was a Branch Post-master in the rural Post Office and was receiving a part time allowance. Therefore, he was not a regular employee of the department covered by the Central Civil Services Rules and, therefore, his employment was no bar to the appointment of the petitioner. The matter was then carried in appeal to the Commissioner who has interpreted Clause- 3 (E) of the Regulations 2006, for appointment of Anganbari Sewikas setting aside the order of the District Magistrate thereby unseating the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Clause-3 (E), it was only an inter departmental Post Office employee who was 2 ineligible. The finding of the District Magistrate is that the husband of the petitioner is not an inter departmental Post Office employee covered by the Central Civil Services Rules. Reasoning of the Commissioner was beyond the limitations of Clause- 3 (E) and, therefore, the order is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the State supported the order of the Commissioner by urging that the Commissioner has appropriately considered the social purpose of the appointment to provide a source of livelihood to the destitute even while making appointments for dissemination of a welfare scheme. The admitted engagement of the husband of the petitioner in a semi Government status takes her out of the ambit of a destitute and needy person economically. Anganbari Sewikas are appointed for dissemination of welfare scheme of the Government for the needy and downtrodden. They are appointment as agents and do not have the status of Government servant. The conditions for appointment and removal of Government servants also are not applicable to them. Clause 3 (E) of the regulations is not exhaustive but only enumerative. The common thread running through all the qualifications provided 3 in Clause 3 (E) that those who are public servants or their relatives, persons who have obtained a benefit from the Government by being appointed as Public Distribution System Dealers, inter departmental Post Office employee etc. persons in Government and Semi-Government employment and their relatives as specified are not eligible for appointment. The aim and purpose of the limitations is that were a specified family member of an applicant for the post of Anganbari Sweika was already the beneficiary of some Government scheme or programme, the extent of the benefit not being relevant, such an applicant did not fall in the category of destitute and needy person economically to be appointed as an Anganbari Sewika. That is the principle of the reasoning of the order of the Commissioner. The regulations are not statutory. If the conditions in the regulations are palpably and justifiably clear of the social purpose this Court is not persuaded at the behest of the petitioner to read down the scope of Clause 3(E) so as to whittle down the social purpose to interfere with the order of the Commissioner which to this Court is otherwise reasoned and speaking. The husband of the petitioner receiving an 4 allowance from the Government as the Post Master of a rural Post Office certainly comes within the ambit of a Semi-Government employee. The application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)