CWP No.2983 of 2008. 06.01.2009 Present: Mr. Neel kamal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 5. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker and her selection was challenged by the private respondent, inter-alia on the ground that the income of the family was more than Rs.12,000/- per annum and in the process it was brought to the notice that the petitioner’s husband owns a tractor. It is admitted before us by the learned Counsel that the tractor was kept for dual purpose after purchasing the same firstly to cultivate own agricultural land and secondly to give the tractor on hire for cultivating the agricultural land of others. However, the stand taken by the petitioner before this Court is that the tractor was sold. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the appointment. The findings recorded by the two Courts below are crystal clear to the extent that the Registration Certificate of the tractor remained in the name of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner contended before this Court that the tractor has gone to two hands. However, Pritam Singh, who had purchased the vehicle second time, had paid the margin money. Inspite of it, the tractor is still in the name of petitioner’s husband. We cannot go into such disputed question of fact. However, we do not -2- find any ground to show interference as far as the findings of the two Courts that the Registration Certificate was in the name of the husband of the petitioner. Accordingly, no interference is warranted under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. January 06, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)