CWP No.2591/2008 1.12.2008: Present: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Circle, Burahatta, Tehsil Chachoit, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Her selection and appointment was assailed by respondent No.5 primarily on the ground that her income was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The appointment was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. The Deputy Commissioner Mandi accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.5 on 22.2.2008. He came to a definite conclusion that the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum and thus she was not eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi after hearing the parties, affirmed the order dated 22.2.2008 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi while coming to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum had primarily considered the certificate issued by the Block Medical Officer, Bagsaid, which reflected that Sh. Mani Ram, husband of the petitioner, owns a shop and also the certificate issued by the Inspector, Weight and Measures. These certificates could only be issued in favour of the husband of the petitioner since he owned a shop. The contention of Mr. Anup Rattan that the shops in question are owned by his brother is un-tenable. In fact, Mr. Anup 2 Rattan has also shown to the Court the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Chahiot at Gohar, who had also independently inquired into the matter with regard to the income of the petitioner. It is clear from his report that the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Mr. Anup Rattan then submitted that the inquiry also reflects that the income of respondent No.5 is also more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. If it is so, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the appointment of respondent No.5 independently. Mr. Anul Rattan lastly contended that the entire process should be struck down since the income of respondent No.5 is also more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum and the Deputy Commissioner could not direct that the second in merit be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. We do not find any force in this contention; however, the petitioner is at liberty, as noticed above, to assail the appointment of respondent No.5 independently. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the impugned orders. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. December 1, 2008 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *Awasthi*