JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondents No.5 to 8 as Asha Workers on the ground that said appointments are not in consonance with the Scheme so framed by the Government, appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that amongst the persons, who participated for being appointed as Asha Worker from Garam Panchayat Talli, petitioner was the most deserving candidate as she hails from BPL category whereas selected candidates were not fulfilling the criteria for selection as laid down in Annexure P-1. He has argued that Guidelines issued by the Government (Annexure P-1) would demonstrate that only those persons were eligible to be appointed as Asha Worker, who belonged to disadvantaged population groups firstly, as would be evident from Clause 6 of criteria for selection, which contemplates that adequate representation from disadvantaged population groups should be ensured to serve such groups better. He has further argued that appointment of four persons as Asha Workers was otherwise in violation of the said Guidelines which provided that not more than three persons could have been appointed as such. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Divya Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the petition is without any merit because the appointment of the Asha Workers, which is subject matter of the present petition, was done strictly in terms of the Guidelines issued by the Government and there is no violation thereof. She has further argued that selected candidates not only fulfill the criteria, as envisaged in Annexure P-1, but in addition, they had better credentials than the petitioner. She has stated that out of four selected candidates, two candidates, namely Smt. Neelam Devi and Veena, hail from BPL families. Respondents No.5 and 8 have done Nursery Teacher Training, whereas respondent No.7 was Post Graduate. Similarly, with regard to respondent No.6, this Court has been informed that this candidate was middle standard pass, however, no member from her family was employed, either in State Government department or Central Government or semi governmental agency. She has further argued that the selection of the candidates was done in a fair and transparent manner in terms of the Guidelines of the Government, (Annexure P-1), by giving adequate representation to the disadvantaged population groups. She has further argued that the selection of the candidates was done in a fair and transparent manner in terms of the Guidelines of the Government, (Annexure P-1), by giving adequate representation to the disadvantaged population groups. With regard to the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that four candidates have been selected, whereas, as per Guidelines (Annexure P-1), maximum of three candidates could have been selected, she submitted that petitioner is misreading the Guidelines because appointment has to be done keeping in view the population of the Panchayat concerned and it is permissible under the Guidelines that up to the population of 800, one Asha Worker is to be appointed and number of Asha Workers, who stand appointed, is on the basis of population of the area concerned. 4. Learned Counsel for respondents No. 5 to 8 has adopted the submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the petition, in my considered view, there is no merit in this case. The petitioner participated in the process knowing fully well the criteria for appointment. She has not been able to substantiate that the selected candidates were not eligible to be appointed as Asha Workers in terms of the criteria contemplated in Annexure P-1. The contention of the petitioner that she was having better credentials than that of the selected candidates, in my considered view, is of no consequence because there is nothing on record to demonstrate that selected candidates were appointed for some extraneous reasons. The contention that private respondents hailed from monetarily rich families also does not has too much weight because it could not be disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments that two of the four selected candidates belonged to BPL category and remaining two were appointed as per Guidelines as they fulfilled the criteria envisaged in Annexure P-1. In fact, the criteria laid down in Annexure P-1 does not provides for a maximum family income criteria beyond which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for being appointed as Asha Worker. In fact, the criteria laid down in Annexure P-1 does not provides for a maximum family income criteria beyond which a candidate is not eligible to be considered for being appointed as Asha Worker. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that no discrepancy has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the appointment of the private respondents and further as it could not be established that their appointment is in violation of the selection criteria, as contemplated in Guidelines Annexure P-1, appended with the petition, this petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.