ORDER 1. In these two writ petitions, petitioners have assailed an order (P-1) dated 11.6.2004 passed by the Commissioner and the order (P-2) dated 7.7.2000 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Anooppur. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Aganwadi workers as per order (P-3) on 26.6.1998. Order (P-2) dated 7.7.2000 of removal was passed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Anooppur. Petitioner in WP(S) No. 5416/04 was removed on the ground that her husband namely Shri Govind Prasad Pandey was Panch and in WP(S) No. 6670/04 petitioner's mother-in-law namely Smt. Kalawati was an elected member of the Janpad Panchayat. Hence, appointments were illegal, consequently cancelled. Petitioners had filed appeals before the Commissioner; appeals were dismissed as per order (P-l) dated 11.6.2004 on the ground that petitioner's husband and sister-in-law [in WP(S) No. 5416/04] and petitioner's mother-in-law [in WP(S) No.6670/04] were member of Janpad Panchayat and Health Development Committee, thus, the petitioners were not eligible being relatives of office bearer of Janapad Panchayat for appointment as Aganwadi worker. Petitioners have assailed the orders in these writ petitions on the ground that there is no justification in cancelling the order of appointment. There is no application of mind. After reply to the show cause notice, it was submitted that nothing further transpired; orders of termination were issued. The relatives of the petitioners were not members of the committee which appointed the petitioners as Aganwadi workers, hence, the orders (P-1) and (P-2) deserve to be quashed. 3. In the return filed by the respondents, it is contended that there is clear ban of appointment of relative of office bearer of Panchayat. Circular (R-2) dated 29.10.1996 has been relied upon by the respondents which provides in para 1 (7) that no person who is relative of office bearer of Panchayat shall be appointed, in case any such appointment is made, the said office bearer shall be also disqualified; Policy (R-1) also provides in para 1(3) that any relative of elected office bearer of Panchayat cannot be appointed as Aganwadi worker. 4. 4. Petitioners' counsel has placed reliance on circular issued in December, 1997 in which State Government has issued certain clarifications with respect to the provision of section 40(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Ewam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 which provides that the use of position of influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any relative in the Panchayat or any action for extending any pecuniary benefits to any relative, such as giving out any type of lease, getting any work done through them in the Panchayat by an office bearer of Panchayat. Clarification (P-9) issued u/s 40 has no effect on the policy which has been framed for appointment of Aaganwadi workers independently which clearly creates ban on appointment of relatives of elected office bearer of Panchayat as Aganwadi worker. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, as on facts it is not in dispute that petitioners were appointed when their relatives were the members of Panchayat, appointment was made illegally. Merely by the fact that relatives of petitioners were not the member of selection committee embargo put on appointments of relatives of elected members contained in the memo (R -1) and circular (R-2) is not lifted. 6. Consequently, I find that impugned orders are proper; no interference is called for in these writ petitions. Both writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.