CWP No.4169 of 2009. 14.12.2009. Present: Mr. Haresh Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 11.4.2007. Respondent No.5 challenged her appointment. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal on 21.1.2008. The petitioner filed the appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner. He remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner on 13.5.2008. Thereafter, the Divisional Commissioner upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner on 19.3.2009. The petitioner filed a review petition against the order dated 19.3.2009. The Divisional Commissioner reviewed the order on 28.3.2009. Respondent No.5 has challenged this decision of the Divisional Commissioner before this Court. This Court set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner in CWP No. 1570 of 2009. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and also by the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.1.2008 by way of this writ petition. We have heard Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner was initially issued Certificate by the competent authority that her income was less than Rs.12,000/-. The Tehsildar, Kullu again looked into the matter on the basis of the revenue records and recommended vide report dated 18.1.2007 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kullu to cancel the income certificate issued to her. According to the report of the Tehsildar, the petitioner is owner of 1-19 Bighas of land and her father owns 6 Bighas of land. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kullu on the basis of the recommendations made by the Tehsildar has cancelled the Income Certificate on 21.1.2008. The Certificate has been cancelled on the basis of the revenue records. In these circumstances, it was not necessary to associate the petitioner during the course of enquiry held by the Tehsildar, Kullu. Accordingly, since the income of the petitioner was more than Rs.12,000/-, she could not be considered for the appointment to the post in question. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (R.B. Misra), ACJ. 14th December, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (tr)