IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1017 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 7.3.2011. Date of Decision: 14.3.2011 Smt.Somawati …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Sh.V.B. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Sh.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G.. for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms.Rita Goswami, counsel for R-5. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, who was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 12.8.2007, is aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner dismissing his appeal. 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Rallui. Respondent No.5 who had applied for the said post challenged the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not separated from the family of her in-laws prior to 1.1.2004 and therefore if the income of her father-in-law was taken into 2 consideration the total family income is more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. It was proved that Sh.Ravi Ram, father-in-law of the petitioner, was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6266/- and it was found by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner had got her family separated from her in-laws only on 1.1.2004 and therefore her selection was set-aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu vide his order dated 3.7.2007 only on the ground that her income exceeds the maximum prescribed income. The Deputy Commissioner further directed that appointment be offered to respondent No.5 who was at number one of the waiting list. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Divisional Commissioner also held that the salary being earned by the father-in-law had to be taken into consideration while considering the total family income of the petitioner since the family had not separated prior to 1.1.2004. 3. The petitioner has challenged this appointment. The main ground of challenge is that both the authorities below erred in holding that the family had separated after 1.1.2004. Reliance is placed on the following observations of the Division Bench of this Court in 3 Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, 2010(2) Him.L.R. (DB) 964: “7. Coming to the other cases, issues involved pertain to eligibility conditions other than income. In some cases issue raised is as to the computation of income, based on the family status. Family status is to be decided, based on the cut off date, namely 1.1.2004. The Parivar Register is the basic and conclusive evidence with regard to the family status. Therefore, computation of income should be on the basis of the members of the family, entered in the Parivar Register, as on 1.1.2004 and not on any other certificate. We find that in some of the cases, for the only reason that the family had not been separated as on 1.1.2004, the candidates were disqualified. The separation of the family as on 1.1.2004, is not a pre requisite condition to make a person eligible for appointment. The eligibility criterion, as appearing in the Guidelines, at 4(e) reads as follows: “Those belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st January, 2004” Clause 4(f) also has to be read, in conjunction with clause (e), which reads: “Those whose annual income does not exceed Rs.8000 per annum, to be certified countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.” 8. Separation of the family is specifically mentioned in clause 4(e), only for the purpose of computation of income, and if not it will certainly be a patently unreasonable provision for making a person eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. Income is the criterion and that was sought to be explained as per clause 4(e). Otherwise, for the only 4 reason that the family is not separate even if the income is far below Rs.12,000/-, an applicant would not be entitled to make an application. That certainly is not the object of the prescription of the criterion, as extracted above. 9. Another contention raised is as to the computation of income. Computation of income and the family status are to be determined as on the date of the application for appointment. Though, a contention is raised that the date of appointment should be the relevant date, it is now well settled proposition of law that qualification/eligibility, in the matter of appointment, has to be determined as on the last date of application or the cut off date indicated in the advertisement as per rules, scheme or guidelines, applicable in the matter of recruitment and not the date of appointment.” 4. In my view, these observations do not help the petitioner since the Division Bench has clearly held that the purpose of division of family is only to ascertain the total income. Now when there is no record to show that the family had separated prior to 1.1.2004 then the income of all the members has to be taken into consideration for computing the income. If the salary of the father-in-law of the petitioner is taken into consideration which is more than Rs.6500/- per month, the total family income exceeds the maximum limit manifold. 5 5. Lastly, Sh.V.B. Verma, urged that even the family income of respondent No.5 is more than the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/-. This point was not raised before the Divisional Commissioner and cannot be permitted to be raised in these proceedings. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is rejected. No costs. March 14, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.