IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 906 of 2011 Km. Poonam ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of “Angan Bari” worker for “Angan Bari” centre Borani, Block Bhasiyachana, District Almora. Admittedly the post was reserved for Schedule Caste candidate. In the said selection process Smt. Geeta Chaniyal was selected and the appointment was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1135 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the Appellate Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the selected candidate. Subsequent to that, an order dated 2.7.2011 was passed by the Appellate Authority holding that the appointment was wrongly given to Smt. Geeta Chaniyal and therefore they had ordered for re- advertisement of the vacancy. 2 3. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that there were only two candidates for the post of “Angan Bari” worker for the said “Angan Bari” centre and the only reason for which the petitioner was not selected was that she is not a Below Poverty Line (from hereinafter referred to as BPL) category candidate. 4. Such appointments of “Angan Bari” workers are presently governed by the Government Order dated 24.2.2009 which lays down, inter alia, the eligibility for appointment of the “Angan Bari” worker, where it has been clearly stated that being a member of BPL category is not a mandatory requirement, although the first preference, has to be given to a candidate belonging to the BPL category. Since the candidature of the “selected candidate” already stands rejected and since there were only two candidates for the said post of “Angan Bari” worker, appointment was liable to be given to the petitioner, and it could not have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a person below the poverty line. Respondent no. 4 i.e. District Programme Officer, Almora is hereby directed that unless there is any other ineligibility attached to the petitioner, the appointment shall be given to the petitioner. Needful be done within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the District Programme Officer, Almora. 5. Writ petition is allowed. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.11.2011 Avneet