HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1353 of 2005 (S/S) Smt. Gita Sharma W/o Shri Kameshwar Datt Sharma C/o Shri Ram Saran, Head Master Village Gadarjudda Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar … Petitioner Versus District Programme Officer, Bal Vikas Haridwar and another … Respondents Dated:- 08th February, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. P. Sah, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th August, 2005 by which her appointment as an Aganwadi Karyakarti has been terminated. It transpires that the petitioner applied for the said post in the year 1997 when the applications were invited. The petitioner was appointed as an Aganwadi Karyakarti on 03rd July, 1998 and had been discharging her duties since then. It transpires that, upon a complaint, the matter was investigated and, the Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted a report, on the basis of which, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice to show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled as she was found to be ineligible for such an appointment. The petitioner submitted a reply and, the authority, after considering the matter, passed the impugned order terminating her services on the grounds that the petitioner was not living below the poverty line and that she was not a permanent resident of that village, and therefore, on these two grounds, the petitioner was ineligible for an appointment on the post of Aganwadi Karyakarti. The respondents in their investigation found that the petitioner’s husband was working as a Assistant Teacher and was receiving a salary w.e.f. 01.05.1998 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 and, therefore, the petitioner was living above the poverty line. Evidence also came that the petitioner was not the resident of village Gadarjudda. The aforesaid facts have been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s husband was receiving a consolidated amount of Rs.850/- per month at the time when the petitioner had applied for the post of Aganwadi Karykarti in the month of March, 1997 and, therefore was eligible and had not concealed any material fact. In my opinion, it is immaterial as to whether the petitioner’s husband was receiving a consolidated amount at the time when the petitioner had applied. The relevant factor is the date of appointment, and if, on the date of appointment, the petitioner’s family was living above the poverty line, then under 2 the scheme of Bal Vikas, the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Aganwadi Karyakarti. Admittedly, at the time when the petitioner was given an appointment, the family of the petitioner was living above the poverty line, and consequently as per the instructions issued by the Government, the petitioner was not eligible for such appointment. Consequently, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 08.02.2010 LSR