IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3356 of 2010 Decided on 6th July, 2010. Daya Devi ….Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 6: Mr. D.P. Chauhan, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Issue raised in this writ petition pertains to the appointment of Anganwari worker at Anganwari Centre, Segal, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The 5th respondent was the person originally selected. That was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was allowed. The 5th respondent filed another appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. That appeal was dismissed. However, in the order, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, there was a passing reference to the effect that the petitioner, herein, is also not entitled for appointment since she is also living in a joint family, prior to the amendment of 2004 and that her income was more than the prescribed limit. To that extent aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, filed review before the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner entertained the review and passed a fresh order, Annexure P-4 wherein it was found that the petitioner and the 6th respondent had obtained equal marks before the selection committee and since the petitioner, being older in age, was directed to be appointed. In the meanwhile, 6th respondent had already been appointed, in view of the finding that the petitioner and the 5th respondent had income more than the limit. Under the above circumstances, 6th respondent filed writ petition No. 1914 of 2009, Chameli Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others and that writ petition was disposed of holding, inter alia, that the Appellate Authority did not possess any power to review his own order and, therefore, Annexure P-4, order was set aside. In such circumstances, the petitioner has field this writ petition challenging Anenxure P-3, order wherein there is an adverse finding with regard to the income of the petitioner. 2. Having heard learned counsel on both sides and also having heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General, we are of the view that the matter requires afresh consideration by the Appellate Authority, Mandi with notice to the petitioner and respondents No. 5 and 6 since the finding with regard to the income, according to the petitioner, is without any basis. True, the same is disputed by the 6th respondent. Having regard to the dispute, as above, it is appropriate that the matter is considered afresh by the 3rd respondent. 3. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition setting aside Annexure P-3, order, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh with notice to 5th and 6th respondents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, adverting to the contentions raised by the parties. This shall be done within a period of four months from today on production of the copy of this judgment. The arrangement, as on today, will continue till orders, as above, are passed. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 6th July, 2010(K) (Justice Kuldip Singh), Judge