CWP No. 4912 of 2010 27.5.2011 Present: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, for respondent No. 5. Undisputedly both Smt. Raksha Devi (petitioner) and Smt. Lata Devi (respondent No. 5) had appeared in the interview for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Chayama. Smt. Lata Devi and Smt. Raksha Devi were the only two candidates. Smt. Lata Devi was ineligible for appointment for the reason that she did not fall within the feeding area of Anganwari Centre and Smt. Raksha Devi was ineligible for the reason that she was below 21 years of age. 2. Smt. Raksha Devi, could not have been appointed due to under age, which condition in any event could not have been relaxed. Consequently Smt. Lata Devi approached this Court by way of CWP No. 676 of 2010, praying for declaration of the result. The said petition was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 10.5.2010, with a direction to the appropriate authority to look into the matter. In terms of the impugned order dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure P-13) the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur has decided the matter by holding that Smt. Raksha Devi being under-age could not be considered for appointment at all and Smt. Lata Devi being the sole contender, in view of the relaxation clause in the policy, was -2- eligible to be considered for appointment to the post in question. The policy, prevalent at that time clearly required that the candidate must be from the feeding area which condition the authorities were competent to relax. 3. Consequently, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or error in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The object and purpose of floating scheme for Anganwari Worker is to provide services to the children expectant and nursing mothers. None had come forward from the feeding area to be appointed as an Anganwari Worker. Anganwari Centre cannot be left vacant. The objects of the scheme need to be achieved under all circumstances. Consequently Smt. Lata Devi was rightly appointed. 4. It cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 27, 2011 (PK)