JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent no. 8 as also counsel for the State. 2. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: "That this application is being filed for a direction to the respondents to grant nomination letter to the petitioner for the post of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre Babhain Centre Code 90 situated within Bakhari Block of Begusarai District with all consequential monetary benefit." 3. With respect to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actions on the part of official respondents by denying appointment of the petitioner and selection and appointment of respondent no. 8 are bad because the case of the petitioner was itself wrongly considered and rejected by the Gram Sabha on the solitary ground that the father-in-law of the petitioner was working as Home Guard. He would in this regard refer to the proceedings of a meeting dated 3rd and 4th May, 2000 of all the Child Development Project Officers convened by the Director Integrated Child Development Project wherein it was clarified that the Home Guard, Pension holders and Teachers receiving no financial aid being not Government servant would not stand as a bar for appointment of their wards as Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika. On the basis of the aforesaid clarification (Annexure-3) learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the decision taken by the Aam Sabha on 24.4.2007 eliminating the case of the petitioner, only on the ground that her father-in-law was a Home Guard and thus a Government servant, was wholly unsustainable and consequently selection and appointment of respondent No. 8 on the post of Anganbari Sevika cannot be upheld. 4. The respondent no. 8 on the other hand has filed a counter affidavit, wherein she has enclosed a document to show that father-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Brahmdeo Mahto was a retired ADHINAYAK ANUSEVAK in the office of Bihar Home Guards and his date of retirement was 31.8.2007. Counsel for Respondent No. 8 on the basis of the aforesaid documents submits that the said father-in-law of the petitioner working as an Instructor in the Home Guard was actually Government servant which would also become clear from the information sought by respondent no. Counsel for Respondent No. 8 on the basis of the aforesaid documents submits that the said father-in-law of the petitioner working as an Instructor in the Home Guard was actually Government servant which would also become clear from the information sought by respondent no. 8 and its reply furnished by the authority under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit wherein it was stated that father-in-law of the petitioner was also receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 5,204/- as payable to any other Government servant. The counsel for the respondent no. 8 has thus taken a firm stand that the petitioner was not eligible for being appointed as Anganbari Sevika. 5. No counter affidavit however has been filed by the State or the official respondents. The learned Counsel for the State has however adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 8. 6. In the opinion of this Court the provisions for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika being a matter of policy and circumscribed by a scheme, the same has to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. The scheme itself (which has been revised in the year 2006) would go to show that the guidelines were made for achieving the following objects: 8. Thus for achieving the aforesaid laudable object, in the MARGDARSHIKA (GUIDELINES) full care has been taken to select Anganbari Sevika from amongst the poorest section of the society and thus while laying down the procedure for selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika the following essential provision have been incorporated, namely: r 9. Thus the criteria for selecting the Anganbari Sevika is basically aimed to select a lady who could promote and instill confidence amongst the beneficiaries of the centre and in more particular for the women, adolescent girls and children belonging to below poverty line. It is thus in order to achieve this object that provisions for disqualification of certain categories of candidates, whose father-in-law, husband or relatives are Government servants have been incorporated, making them ineligible for appointment on the post of Anganbai Sevika. It is thus in order to achieve this object that provisions for disqualification of certain categories of candidates, whose father-in-law, husband or relatives are Government servants have been incorporated, making them ineligible for appointment on the post of Anganbai Sevika. Even a candidate of the family of dealer of Public Distribution System or a Mobile Kerosene vendor/hawker or an Extra Departmental Postmaster (E.D.P.M.) in receipt of some sort of Government revenue have been excluded which would go only to show that the expression such as "AADI" and "ITAYADI" used in Clause-3(Angah) are only illustrative in nature and are capable of being expanded by inclusion of more categories of similarly situated persons. 10. Judged in this background, when this Court would find that the father-in-law of the petitioner was an Instructor in the Home Guards Organization who continued in service till 31.8.2007 i.e. till selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 8 on 24.4.2007 while rejecting the claim of appointment of the petitioner, who still continues to receive monthly pension from 1.9.2007 by way of Rs. 5,204/- per month as is also clearly reported by the authorities in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 8 and neither denied nor explained by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit, it must be held that the petitioner also was ineligible as on 24.4.2007 under Clause-3 (Angah) of the. policy. It will be in fact even otherwise difficult for this court to believe that the father-in-law of the petitioner was receiving monthly pension as a Home Guard when the Home Guards having intermittent tenure of service do not qualify for monthly pension in terms of Bihar Pension Rules. It thus becomes clear that the father-in-law was actually posted as an Instructor in Home Guard establishment and had retired as a Government servant whereafter he was being paid monthly pension. It thus becomes clear that the father-in-law was actually posted as an Instructor in Home Guard establishment and had retired as a Government servant whereafter he was being paid monthly pension. Thus the over simplistic argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the clarification of Director, I.C.D.S. that a Home Guard and/or a pensioner would not be covered by the provisions Clause-3 (Angah) must be rejected specially when the father-in-law of the petitioner was not a Home Guard rather a Government employee working in Home Guard establishment nor was a pensioner on 24.4.2007, the date on which the selection of the petitioner vis-a-vis Respondent No. 8 was considered leading to appointment to Respondent No. 8 as Anganbari Sevika inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that the father-in-law of the petitioner had retired from service only on 1.9.2007. In any event the Directors clarification cannot be contrary to object of scheme including its Clause-3 (Angah). 11. Consequently this court must hold that there was/is no flaw in the decision taken by the Respondent holding the petitioner to be ineligible in terms of Clause-3 (Angah) and as such her prayer to set aside the selection and appointment of Respondent No. 8 and a direction to appoint the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika in place of Respondent No. 8 must be and is hereby rejected. 12. That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.