IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1136 of 2011 Decided on: April 29, 2011. Pushpa Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5 in person. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the fifth respondent as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Lanu. As far as the petitioner is concerned, her averment is that she is an orphan. But, in the inquiry conducted in this regard, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has correctly taken the view that there is no valid certificate to establish that she is an orphan. That apart, she owns property in two Patwar Circles, whereas she has produced the income certificate from only one Patwar Circle and the income of the petitioner from two Patwar Circles will come to Rs.15000/- per annum. Therefore, she is not qualified or eligible to be appointed as Anganwari Worker. 2. The fifth respondent, who is present before us, submits that her husband has suffered spinal injury on account of accident and he is not 2 in a position to do any job. She has two children and that her family only owns half bigha uncultivated land. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that computation of income of private respondent is also not proper since she had not been separated from the family in the year 2004, as required under the guidelines. But in the inquiry, it has come out that she had been separated from the family in April 2006, whereas the appointment was made only in the year 2007. Be that as it may. Since the petitioner is not going to get any benefit even if the selection is set aside, we do not think it necessary to issue a futile writ. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), April 29, 2011 Judge (pankaj/bss)