IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No. 618 of 2008. Decided on: 20.11.2008. __________________________________________________ Sita Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No. 6. : None. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dated 6.2.2008. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner appeared in the interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker before the Selection Committee on 24.7.2007. She was offered appointment as Anganwadi Worker on 8.8.2007. She joined her duties on 11.8.2007 as Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Centre, Rangri. The respondent No.6 assailed the appointment of the petitioner before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu accepted the appeal. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and the same was dismissed by him on 6.2.2008. Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dated 31.10.2007 and 6.2.2008 respectively are not sustainable. He then contended that the income of his client is not more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum since her brother is only engaged as a Helper in the K.K. Hydro Power Project, Baragran. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General supported the orders passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi respectively. Respondent No.6 was duly informed for 23.9.2008. However, she is neither present in person nor she has engaged any Advocate. I have heard the parties and have gone through the record carefully. It is clear from the Scheme notified by the State Government that income of the family of the Anganwadi Worker should not be more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. Though the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 8.8.2007, her appointment was assailed primarily on the ground that the income of her family was more than Rs. 12,000/- per annum. The Deputy Commissioner, Kullu got the matter enquired whether the brother of the petitioner was engaged in K.K. Hydro Power Project, Baragran vide letter dated 5.9.2007. The Manager, K.K. Hydro Power Project Ltd., Baragran vide letter 20.9.2007 informed that the brother of the petitioner was engaged as a Helper and getting the salary of Rs. 3 3360/- per month. She has accepted in her statement that her brother Shri Subhash Kumar was residing with her. In view of this, the finding recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu that the income of the petitioner’s family was more than Rs. 12,000/- need not be interfered with. The learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has also correctly appreciated the facts projected before him. However, a submission was made before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi that income of respondent No.6 is also more than Rs. 12,000/-. This Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu to look into the income of respondent No.6 himself or by a person nominated by him not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) vide order dated 16.10.2008. The matter was got enquired from the agency of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu. According to his report, income of respondent No.6 is more than Rs. 42,000/- per annum. Her husband also owns a car. She has also refused to record her statement before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu. Thus, respondent No.6 is also not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is held that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.6 is eligible for being considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Consequently, the respondent No.5 is directed to re-start the process of filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker afresh and complete the same within a period of three months from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. November 20, 2008. (cr) 4