Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mandi, Annexure P-5, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on 23.3.2011 as being time barred. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 Smt. Anita Devi had applied for income certificate for the period when she was seeking employment as Aganwari Worker. With Annexure P1, issued by the Executive Magistrate, Sandhol, it was certified that her income did not exceed to Rs.10,800/- per annum. Thereafter she was selected as Aganwari Worker and when an appeal etc., was preferred. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order is passed on the hyper technical ground. 3. Respondent No.4 pleaded that there has been suppression of material facts. The petitioner has assailed the selection of the replying respondent as Angawari Worker in CWP No.128 of 2009, titled Rita Kumari vs. State of H.P. and it was remanded by the Division Bench of this Court inter alia directing: “19. Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 20. There will be a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider the cases afresh, in the light of the above clarifications/directions observations and take appropriate action within a period of six months as directed hereinabove.” The pleadings further are that from the reply filed and the documents annexed, it is clear that the income of the respondent for the relevant year was not and did not exceed statutory limit. I am not entering to the other aspect of the case on merits. Since only question which raised before me is as to whether the order challenged in this petition has been passed in consonance with the law or otherwise. 4. I am not entering to the other aspect of the case on merits. Since only question which raised before me is as to whether the order challenged in this petition has been passed in consonance with the law or otherwise. 4. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the appeal has been preferred after the statutory period, it cannot be said that the appeal has not been properly disposed of. It is undisputed before me that with Annexure P-2 on further enquiry with respect to the income of respondent No. 4, the same has been reaffirmed and found in consonance with Annexure P-1. Emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the appellant on the grounds of the appeal, Annexure P-4, in which there is an averment that appellant came to know about certificate Annexure P-2 only on 10.1.2011 when she able to procure the copy of the certificate. However, what I find from the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) no such proof has been placed on the record of the case. In any event the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Mandi cannot be faulted with. I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. 5. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.