CWP No. 980 of 2009. 6.4.2009. Present: Ms.Anita Dogra, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G., for respondents No.1 to 3. CMP No.1751 of 2009: Allowed. CWP No.980 of 2009: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 12.3.2009, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that initially Smt.Kusum Lata, wife of Shri Prem Raj, was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Tilari. Her appointment was challenged by respondent No.4 Smt.Pinki Devi. The appointment of Smt.Kusum Lata was set aside and thereafter, on the basis of oral interviews, the present petitioner was offered appointment. The appointment of the petitioner was also challenged by Smt.Pinki Devi and the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the family income of the petitioner is more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. Both the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the family of the petitioner had not separated as on 1.1.2004 and this separation took place on 1.4.2007. Both the authorities have also -2- recorded a finding of fact that the father-in-law of the petitioner retired from SSB and was receiving pension of Rs.6,000/- per month. These are pure findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal filed by said Smt.Pinki Devi challenging the appointment of the petitioner was not filed within time. Annexure P-1 is the order whereby the petitioner was offered appointment. This is dated 10th December, 2007. The petitioner states that she joined services on 14.12.2007. The appeal was filed on 6th January, 2008. The period for filing an appeal is 15 days. It is apparent that Smt.Pinki Devi could not have been aware of the order since this order has not been communicated to her and she became aware about the appointment of the petitioner only after the petitioner joined the service. The delay, if any, is very minor. In any event, keeping in view the income of the family of the petitioner, we do not find any reason to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. CMPs No.1749 and 1750 of 2009: Infructuous. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . April 6, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.