IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 977 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.4.2009 Geeta Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). CMP No. 1729 of 2009. Allowed. CWP No. 977 of 2009 The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari helper in Anganwari Centre, Bhukho, Distt. Shimla. An appeal was filed challenging her appointment before the Deputy Commissioner. Her appointment has been set-aside on the ground that her husband is working as Panchayat Sahayak and getting salary of Rs.2340/- per month and therefore, the family income of the petitioner is much more than the prescribed limited of Rs.12,000/-. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. . 2 The main contention raised by Shri Romesh Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that interviews in this case were held on 20th July, 2007 and at that time the salary of the husband of the petitioner was only Rs.600/- per month, i.e. Rs.7200/- per annum, well below the prescribed limit. He does not, however, deny the fact that now the salary of the petitioner’s husband is Rs.2340/- per month. We are not at all inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In case the Anganwari Scheme is seen as a whole it is clear that the purpose behind the scheme is that for the care and maintenance of the children of the village in the local Anganwari centre, the poorest of the poor are to be employed and given such work. There is material on record to show that the husband of the petitioner owns a pick-up van. He is employed as Panchayat Sahayak, getting salary of Rs.2340/- per month. Therefore, we do not find that this is a case which calls for interference in exercise of our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. CMP No.1728 of 2009 In view of the above, the stay application is also dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 6, 2009 ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™