Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi worker vide order dt. 14.08.2007 (Annex. 2). She was removed on a complaint submitted to the District Collector, Hanumangarh objecting for her appointment on the ground that her real sister is already in service as Aanganwadi worker and as per the guidelines issued by the Government dt. 15.09.2003 (Annex. 1) and as per the Clause 8 of the said scheme, only one member of one family can be given appointment as Aanganwadi worker. Therefore, the petitioner, who was given appointment as Aanganwadi worker, was ineligible to be appointed on the said post.
(2.) AS per the stand taken by the respondent in reply, an enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner admitted that her sister is also working as Aanganwadi worker. However, her contention was that she and her sister both are married and are living with their husbands in separate houses. The said contention was not accepted and, thereafter, it appears that one order was passed on 17.10.2007 by the Director, Woman and Child Development Department, Hanumangarh and in consequence of which, the Child Development Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh passed the order on 01.11.2007 terminating the services of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dt. 01.11.2007.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the copy of the order dt. 17.10.2007, in pursuance of which the order dt. 01.11.2007 has been passed, has not been provided to the petitioner inspite of the petitioner's request for giving copy of the said order. The controversy is very narrow. Even as per the stand taken by the respondent, only one person from one family could have been given appointment under the scheme as Aanganwadi worker, then, admittedly, the petitioner and her sister are married and are living separately, therefore, they are not members of the same family.;