IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 760 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.3.2009 Saviteri Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General and Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in case No. 177/08, whereby the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Kotla in District Kullu has been set-aside and the Divisional Commissioner has further directed that Smt. Chandervati be given the appointment at the said centre. The main ground for setting aside the appointment of the petitioner is that the annual income of her husband was more than 12,000/- per annum. Initially a certificate was issued by the Patwari of the concerned circle certifying that the family income of the petitioner was less than 12,000/- per annum. An appeal was filed by the respondent 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 No.6 and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Second appeal was filed before the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner took note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner is registered as “D” Class contractor with the IPH department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. It was found as a fact that the petitioner’s husband had received payment of Rs.3,88,253/- from the department during the year in question, i.e. 2006-07 vide letter No. HPSEB/OCK/E-III-G-17/07- 9780 dated 29.08.2007. It has been contended before us by Shri Ajay Chandel that though the petitioner’s husband may have received this amount but the net income was only about 4,000/- from his work as contractor. This contention has been made only to be rejected. A person who is registered as a “D” class contractor will not carry on the work in such a manner that his income is less than the wages of a daily-wage Mazdoor. Shri Ajay Chandel has also contended that respondent No.6 could not have filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner because she was not a candidate. We are not going into this question at this stage, but we are clearly of the view that keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case we are not inclined to exercise the extra writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person who withheld the fact from Patwari that her husband was working as a “D” class contractor with the IPH department. However, the CDPO, Kullu at Banjar, has issued a letter on 17th March, 2009 in response to the application sent by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act that Smt. Chandravati had never applied for the post of Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre Kotla, District Kullu. Once she had not applied for the said post the Divisional 3 Commissioner had no jurisdiction to direct that she be appointed to the said post. This portion of the order is accordingly set-aside and we further direct that the post shall be filled up by calling fresh applications and by following the procedure prescribed by law within a period of three months from today. Till then the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in the said post. Petition is disposed of. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 20, 2009 ( V.K Ahuja ), J. ™