IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1509 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.05.2009 Sushma Devi … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Moul, Gram Panchayat Sachani, Tehsil and District Kullu. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No. 6 by filing an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner. This appeal was allowed on 21.4.2008 solely on the ground that the brother of the husband of the present petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Notified Area Committee and that since the family of the petitioner was shown to be a joint family in the Pariwar Register, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment as an Anganwari Worker 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 since the total income of the family was more than Rs.12,000/-, which is the prescribed limit. Aggrieved against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which has been dismissed on 13.5.2008. Hence, the present writ petition. Mr. Vikram Thakur has urged that the order of the Divisional Commissioner is a totally unreasoned order and, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh decision. There is force in the submission of Mr. Vikram Thakur that the order in question is unreasoned order. The order only shows that the appellant was heard on the stay application and the appeal. No discussion has been made by the Divisional Commissioner about the arguments addressed before him and no reasons have been given in this order. This Court has repeatedly held that all the orders which affect the rights of the parties must be supported by the reasons. However having held that the order is without reason, we in a writ proceedings do not think that this is a fit case where we should remand the matter to the Divisional Commissioner. The material relied upon by both the sides was before the Deputy Commissioner. No material has been placed before us to show that the family of the petitioner had separated in accordance with law prior to 1.1.2004. Since there was no separation of the family prior to 1.1.2004, the petitioner has to be taken to be a member of the joint family including her brother-in-law. Mr. Vikram Thakur has urged that a certificate has been issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat showing that the petitioner and her husband had separated after the death of the father- in-law of the petitioner from the other members of the family. This 3 certificate has been issued by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. This is not legal separation envisaged in law, where the orders are required to be passed by the S.D.O.(Civil) concerned and the same must be reflected in the Pariwar Register of the relevant period. The Pariwar Register of the relevant period shows the family to be a joint family. Therefore, we find that the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment since the total income of the family of the petitioner was more than Rs.12,000/-. As such, there is no infirmity in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petition is, therefore, rejected. CMP No. 2215 of 2008: In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application has become infructuous. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 21, 2009 Judge (BSS) 4