IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 29 of 2010 Smt. Gita Sharma …Appellant. Versus District Programe Officer, Bal Vikas Haridwar and another. …Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The appellant was inducted into service as Aganwadi worker in the Child Development Scheme on 3.7.1998. She continued to render service as such till 20.8.2005, when her services were dispensed with. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that a notice was issued to the appellant informing her that she had mistakenly/wrongfully been appointed as Aganwadi worker on 3.7.1998, despite the fact that she was ineligible. After the receipt of the reply of the appellant, her services were terminated by an order dated 20.8.2005. 2. The order dated 20.8.2005 was assailed by the appellant by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1353 of 2005. The aforesaid writ petition was, however, dismissed by an order dated 8.2.2010. 3. Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 8.2.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1353 of 2005. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not furnish any false information to the respondents, and as such, no 2 fault can be fastened on the appellant for having obtained wrongful appointment as Aganwadi worker. Additionally, it is pointed out that it was wholly incorrect for the respondents to contend that the appellant was not eligible for appointment to the post of Aganwadi worker. On the instant issue, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Government Order dated 3.12.1997, copy whereof was appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents as Annexure CA-1. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. While doing so, we have perused the Government Order dated 3.12.1997. We are satisfied that paragraph 3 (Ka) makes it expressly implicit that the first preference while effecting appointments to the post of Aganwadi worker has to be given to a widow belonging to the same village, as a matter of second preference, appointment of Aganwadi worker has to be made from out of women belonging to the village, who have been deserted by their husbands. In the absence of the aforesaid two eventualities, the women from the Aganwadi area with income below the poverty line would be considered. It is the conceded position at the hands of the appellant, that the appellant did not satisfy the requirement of the preferences for appointment to the post of Aganwadi worker. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is apparent that the appellant could only have been appointed as Aganwadi worker, if her income was below the poverty line. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1353 of 2005 (by the impugned order dated 8.2.2010) has clearly concluded that the appellant was not below the poverty line at the time of her appointment. 3 This factual position is not disputed at the hands of the appellant. 6. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the appellant was not eligible for appointment as Aganwadi worker on 3.7.1998, and as such, we are satisfied that her termination based on her ineligibility by the impugned order dated 20.8.2005 was fully justified. 7. In view of the above, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed. 8. Since the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, it is not necessary to pass a formal order on the application for condonation of delay. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.3.2010 Rathour