IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8591 of 2011. Decided on: 28.09.2011. Asha Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and ors. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. For the petitioners : Mr. Y. Paul, Advocate, vice Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Challenge is on Annexure P-2, order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby he set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Sungal-II, District Bilaspur. Order has been passed on the report of the Tehsildar that income certificate produced by the petitioner was not correct. It is seen from the proceedings that the Tehsildar has cancelled and withdrawn the income certificate of the - 2 - petitioner. According to the Tehsildar, petitioner belongs to an affluent family having 3-4 trucks. It is seen from the appeal, Annexure P-1, that even husband of the petitioner is owner of a truck. All these facts are denied by the petitioner stating that her family had been separated from the matrimonial home in 2007. Be that as it may. The main contention is that the petitioner has not participated in the inquiry. It is seen that the petitioner has filed Annexure P-4, appeal, before the S.D.M., Bilaspur. 2. The S.D.M., Bilaspur shall stand impleaded as additional sixth respondent. There will be a direction to the S.D.M. Bilaspur, to consider Annexure P-4, appeal, with notice to the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. It is made clear that in case it is found that the petitioner has not participated in the inquiry, there shall be no remand. Required inquiry shall be got conducted by the S.D.M., himself and decision, on merits, shall be passed in the appeal. Needful orders, as above, shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the S.D.M., Bilaspur. 3. It is made clear that the operation and implementation of the impugned order, Annexure P-2, will be subject to the finality of the decision on the income certificate of the petitioner. In other words, subject to final outcome of the finding on income of the - 3 - petitioner, in case she is otherwise within the income group, Annexure P-2, impugned order shall be re-opened and the appeal shall be heard afresh. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice September 28, 2011. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (sck/pankaj) Judge.