IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 9712 of 2011-B. Decided on: 16th November, 2011. Parkasho Devi. ……….Petitioner. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ……….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondents No. 4 to 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Badloi, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. was initiated in the year, 2007. Petitioner participated in the selection process and was declared selected. She joined her duties as Anganwari Worker on 10.08.2007. The appointment of the petitioner was assailed by the private respondent by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The same was allowed on 06.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner. The same was dismissed on 23.12.2008. Petitioner assailed the decision of the learned Divisional Commissioner by way of C.W.P. No. 210 of 2009. This Court after setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below, remanded the matter to the Deputy 2 Commissioner on 03.03.2011. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the appointment of the petitioner on 18.10.2011. The order dated 18.10.2011 is under challenge. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in law while calculating the family income of the petitioner to `1,27,900/-. According to him, the family of the petitioner was living separately and the income of mother-in-law and brother-in-law could not be included. 3. We have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 4. We have gone through the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, dated 18.10.2011 carefully. Learned Deputy Commissioner has asked for the report of annual income of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 as on 01.01.2004. Similarly, the Child Development Project Officer, Bijhari was also directed to produce the original record whether Smt. Parkasho Devi was putting up with her mother-in-law or not. According to the report furnished by the Tehsildar, Barsar, dated 16.06.2011, the petitioner was living in joint family, as per copy of Parivar register for the year 2003-2004 and the annual income from land measuring 49 Kanal-10 Marlas comes to `9900/- per annum. The mother-in-law of the petitioner was also getting pension to the tune of `60,000/- per annum. The husband of the petitioner was earning `10,000/- per annum. The brother- in-law of the petitioner was also earning `48,000/- annually. Thus, the total income of the family as on 01.01.2004 was `1,27,900/-. The Tehsildar, Barsar has also reported that 3 the income of respondent No. 4 was `1000/- per annum and the total income of the joint family of respondent No. 4 was `8,000/- per annum. Petitioner has not placed on record any tangible material to establish that she started living separately w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Rather, it is established from the record that family of the petitioner has separated in the year, 2008 only, after the selection process was over. 5. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner on 18.10.2011. 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 16, 2011. (bhupender)