IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 557/2008 Reserved on: 24.9.2008 Decided on: 14.10. 2008 Manchali. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakashi Pathania, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner by way of present petition has assailed the orders dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and dated 29.3.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division, Mandi. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 The appointment as Anganwadi Worker is regulated under the Scheme/Guidelines framed by the State (Annexure R-1) dated 11.4.2007. Para 4 of the Scheme reads thus: “4. Eligibility Criteria Only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker or Helper who are: a) Resident of the village (in case of Rural Area)/ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area; b) For Anganwadi worker minimum qualification shall be Matric or equivalent and for Helper minimum Primary. c) Age between 21-45 years; d) From whose family no one is in Government/Semi Government employment/service. e) Only 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. f) Those whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 8,000/- per annum to be certified/countersigned by an office not below the rank of Tehsildar.” It is thus evident that the candidate to become eligible must be resident of the village in case of rural area and ward in case of urban area where Anganwadi Centre is located. The candidate can also belong to the feeding villages of the Anganwadi area. The petitioner had submitted an application for being considered to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Khargan. She was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Khargan. The appointment of the petitioner was assailed by respondent No.5 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. The Deputy Commissioner, Kullu vide order dated 31.10.2007, accepted the 3 appeal and the appointment of the petitioner was set aside. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division, Mandi. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division dismissed the appeal on 29.3.2008. Mr. I.D. Bali, Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the orders dated 31.10.2007 and 29.3.2008 are not sustainable in the eyes. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua have supported the orders dated 31.10.2007 and 29.3.2008. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner belongs to village Kahudhar. It is not the feeding village of Anganwadi Centre, Khargan as per the survey report submitted by the Child Development Project Officer, Katrain. Her village Kahudhar falls in Anganwadi Centre Pangan. The Court had summoned the record to ascertain whether the petitioner’s village falls in feeding villages of Anganwadi Centre Khargan or not. It is clear from the record that Khargan is a village where the Anganwadi Centre is situated and Chauva and Lohari are the feeding villages. The other Anganwadi Centre is Pangan. Village Kharka and Kathuagey are the feeding villages for Anganwadi Centre Pangan. Thus the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Khargan was contrary to the scheme notified on 11.4.2007. The petitioner neither belongs to village Khargan where the Anganwadi Centre is located nor her village is a feeding village for Angangwadi Centre Khargan. She belongs to village Kahudhar. The learned District Commissioner, Kullu and the learned Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division, Mandi had correctly appreciated all the facts and after going through the record rightly came to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was invalid. There is 4 neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the orders dated 31.10.2007 and 29.3.2008. In view of the aforesaid reason there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14.10.2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*