IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2007. Decided on: 22.12.2008. __________________________________________________ Mrs. Manju Bala … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Chander Narayan Singh, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondents had advertised a post of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Chalag, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur,H.P. The petitioner submitted an application for considering her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker. She was not called for the interview purportedly on the ground that the income of her family was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Mr. Chander Narayan Singh has strenuously argued that action of the respondents of not calling her for interview for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker at village Chalag is arbitrary. He then contended that the criteria of income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum prescribed in the Scheme is unconstitutional. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the criteria of income prescribed under the Scheme. I have heard the parties and have gone through the documents annexed with the petition. It is evident from sub para (f) of paragraph 4 of the Scheme that only those candidates are eligible whose annual family income does not exceed Rs. 12,000/- per annum. In the present case, the petitioner herself has annexed the income certificate dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-5) issued by the competent authority. Income of the petitioner’s family is Rs. 19,200/- per annum. Thus, she was not eligible to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Chalag. Mr. Chander Narayan Singh then argued that his client is working as Anganwadi Helper and her salary i.e. Rs. 7,000/- has been taken into consideration while calculating her family’s income. According to him, income derived by the petitioner while working as Anganwadi Helper should not have been taken into consideration while calculating the annual income of her family. There is no force in this contention. The Scheme is primarily meant to help the poor strata amongst the women. There is reasonable basis for fixing the income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The purpose/objective of the Scheme will be defeated if the candidates with income of more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum are made eligible. The respondents have rightly taken into consideration the salary of the petitioner of Anganwadi Helper while calculating her family’s income. Consequently, action of the respondents of not 3 calling the petitioner for interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker cannot be faulted with. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that no candidate was eligible for the post since the income of the families of all the candidates, who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker, was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. He has assured the Court that the post now will be filled and necessary advertisement will be issued soon. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 22, 2008. (cr)