CWP No. 1591 of 2008. 8.9.2008. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. The appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker was assailed before the Deputy Commissioner who came to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner is more than the prescribed limit. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was assailed before the Divisional Commissioner and before the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner herself produced a letter of the Institute showing that the husband of the petitioner was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner is working in the Institute on work to work basis, but no such plea was taken before the Divisional Commissioner. In the writ petition also there is no averment that the petitioner had taken a specific plea before the Divisional Commissioner that her husband is not working and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Resultantly, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed and so also the pending application. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 8th September, 2008. (Kuldip Singh), J. (tr)