IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 126 of 2010. Decided on May 28, 2010. Ahilya Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant Mr. T.C.Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For respondent 7 Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). The present petition is covered by judgment, dated May 17, 2010, of a Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 1096 of 2010, titled as Raksha Devi v. State of H.P. & others, and connected matters. So, it is disposed of with the following directions, in accordance with the aforesaid judgment:- i), In case the competent authority is of the view that the income certificate issued to the petitioner, is not based on proper computation of income, it will be open to the competent authority to take steps to cancel the same. But it is made clear Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - that such cancellation shall only be, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. So long as the cancellation is not made by the competent authority in accordance with law, and procedure for cancellation and in case notice is not given to the petitioner in the enquiry, she shall not be deprived of her post, to which she was appointed, based on the income certificates, she produced at the relevant time. ii), Appellate authority is directed to take appropriate steps in the case to get the matter regarding cancellation of certificate duly processed by the competent authority. Necessary steps in this regard will be taken and action finalized within a period of four months from the date of production of this judgment to the competent authority. That competent authority will also afford an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Subject to the outcome of the action thus taken by the competent authority, on the income certificate already issued to the petitioner, the appellate authority will take appropriate action within two months. It is made clear that in the event of appointment being cancelled, the appellate authority will issue necessary direction for the next person from the list, to be appointed, in case such a list is available. It is also made clear that the inquiry - 3 - will be on the basis of the Policy/Guidelines as existed at the time of appointment. May 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.