JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, A.C. to S.C. 14 for the State and Mr. Dudhnath Singh learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.3.2016 passed by the respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Supaul in Anganbari Appeal No. 263 of 2014/43 of 2015 whereby he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the District Programme Officer, the respondent No.4 in Anganbari Case No. 10 of 2014 whereby the appointment of the respondent No.6 had been set aside. Thus restoring respondent no.6 to her status as Anganabri Sevika, Centre no. 259, Gram Panchayat Raj, Guriya in the district of Supaul. 3. The facts stands noted in the order of this Court passed on 18.07.2017 and briefly stated is that it is following a process for appointment of an Anganbari Sevika, Centre Code no. 259 Gram Panchayat Guriya, Ward No.1, Block Triveniganj in the district of Supaul vide advertisement dated 27.6.2013 that the private respondent was appointed on the post coming at Serial No.1. The writ petitioner raised objection questioning the eligibility of the private respondent to the post inter alia on grounds that the Gotani (wife of the brother of the husband) of the private respondent was in Government Employment drawing a salary more than Rs. 6000/- and which disqualified the respondent from the appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika, in view of the stipulation present at paragraph 4.9 of the Guidelines circulated through letter dated 10.6.2013 at Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The objection raised by the petitioner was upheld by the District Programme Officer who vide order passed on 18.10.2014 quashed the appointment of the private respondent and directed for a fresh selection process which resulted in the appointment of the writ petitioner. The private respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Collector, Supaul who after examining the stipulation has allowed the appeal to restore the private respondent to her post and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The private respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Collector, Supaul who after examining the stipulation has allowed the appeal to restore the private respondent to her post and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The contest in between the writ petitioner and the private respondent revolves around the interpretation of the stipulation underlying paragraph 4.9 of the guidelines dated 10.6.2013 which reads as under:- ^^dafMdk@mi dafMdk orZeku izko/kku Lka’kksf/kr izko/kku 4-9 lacaf/kr ftys esa inLFkkfir ljdkjh@v)Zzljdkjh lsodksa dh iRuh] cgq fj’rsnkj dk p;u lsfodk in ij ugha fd;k tk;sxk A ¼fj’rsnkj ls vFkZ gS & iRuh] cgq] cgu] uun] HkkStkbZ iq=h½ Lkacaf/kr iapk;r@iz[kaM@vapy@vuqeaMy ,oa ftyk esa inLFkkfir ljdkjh ¼dsUnz ljdkj ,oa jkT; ljdkj½@v)Zljdkjh deZpkjh ;k inkf/kdkjh ds fj’rsnkj dk p;u lsfodk in ij ugha fd;k tk;sxk A ¿fj’rsnkj ls vFkZ gS &ekW] iRuh cgw] uun] HkkHkh ¼vFkkZr cM+s ,oa NksVs HkkbZ dh iRuh½] iq=h] cguÀA Lakfonk vFkok ekuns; vk/kkfjr deZpkjh ;k inkf/kdkjh ftudh ekfld vk; :- 6000@& ¼N% gtkj :i;s½ ;k mlls de gS] muds mij ;g dafMdk ykxw ugha gksrh gS A** 5. It is the argument of Mr. Ravi Ranjan learned counsel for the petitioner that the explanation to the term ‘close relative’ has to be given a wider interpretation to include all closely related to appointee because the scheme is to provide engagement to a deprived class and since a ‘Gotani’ would fit into the definition of a close relative that would disqualify the private respondent to such appointment, the order under challenge has to go. 6. The argument has been contested by Mr. Singh learned counsel for the private respondent as well as learned State counsel to submit that since the guidelines in force does not disqualify an applicant from such appointment on grounds that her ‘Gotani’ is in Government employment, it is appreciating the legal position that the appeal preferred by the private respondent has been allowed by the Collector, Supaul which requires no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Although Mr. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Although Mr. Singh learned counsel for the private respondent has relied upon a decision of a bench of this Court reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 68 (Sunita Kumari versus State of Bihar & Ors.) to submit that similar provision existing in earlier guidelines was struck down by a bench of this Court but considering that the guidelines dated 10.06.2013 have arrived subsequently it is to be seen whether or not the objection raised by the writ petitioner merits consideration and whether the order of the District Magistrate requires interference. The guidelines while disqualifying an applicant from such employment in case her relatives are occupying any post in the Panchayat/Block/Circle/Sub-Division or in the District, whether under the Central Government or the State Government or semi Government organization, has proceeded to qualify the term ‘relative’ to include only the mother, wife, daughter in law, sister in law (husband’s sister) and sister in law (wife of own brother) daughter and sister. Eloquently, the wife of the brother of the husband does not find a mention in the disqualification clause. Meaning thereby a ‘Gotani’ who is a wife of the brother of the husband, not coming under the disqualification clause for such appointment, no infirmity can be found in the order impugned. Though an attempt has been made by Mr. Ranjan to give an expanded meaning to the term ‘relative’ according to the scheme of Anganbari Sevika but that would amount to legislating and where the guidelines itself has consciously omitted to include the wife of the brother of the husband from the area of the disqualification, this Court does not deem it necessary to venture into the area. 8. For the discussions above, I find no reason for interfere with the order passed by the Collector put to challenge in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.