IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5604 of 2011 Reserved on :9th August, 2011 Date of Decision:29th August, 2011 Reeta Devi Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate For the respondent: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Annexure P-4, order dated 21.4.2011 passed by respondent No.6 and order dated 5.7.2011 Annexure P-5 passed by respondent No.4 terminating the petitioner from service may kindly be set aside, quashed. (i) That the cut off date incorporated in clause 4(e) of Scheme, Annexure P-1, may kindly be held arbitrary, discriminatory and may kindly be struck off. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 (ii) That the petitioner may kindly be held eligible to be appointed as Anganwari Worker for all intents and purposes.” 2. For the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre, Anji Siut, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. applications were invited. Petitioner Reeta Devi applied, she was selected and given appointment, which was challenged by respondent Smt. Chander Kanta. Vide orders dated 3.6.2008 Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur at Nahan, set aside her appointment. Reeta Devi preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla, which was rejected vide order dated 9.3.2009. Thereafter, she approached this Court and in terms of judgment dated 17.5.2010 passed in CWP No. 926/2009 alongwith other connected matters, this Court directed her to file a representation to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur at Nahan. Now in terms of impugned order dated 21.4.2011, her appointment stands cancelled. Hence the present petition. 3. As per the averment of the petitioner, she got married to Vinod Kumar on 25/26-1-2004. Interview for the post in question was held on 28.8.2007 and she was appointed on 30.8.2007. As per the inquiry conducted by SDO (Civil), Rajgarh, petitioner’s husband was jointly residing with his father. Prior to the date of the marriage, he was not separated. 3 The Scheme/Guidelines for the engagement of the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers on honorary basis under ICDS Scheme run by Social Justice & Empowerment Department stipulated that the family be separated. That apart, during the course of inquiry, which fact stands affirmed all throughout by the authorities below, petitioner’s brother-in-law, namely, Parmod Parkash as on the date of application was serving as Patwari on daily wage basis and was having an income of Rs.25,000/- per month. As such, petitioner was otherwise ineligible for consideration for the post in question. The eligibility criteria of annual income of the family is fixed to be not more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. Hence, it cannot be said that findings returned by the authorities below and the view taken is based on erroneous appreciation of facts or interpretation of the Scheme/Guidelines. 4. We thus find no illegality/infirmity/ perversity in the impugned order. No ground for interference is made out. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice Sanjay Karol) 29th August, 2011 Judge. (C)