JUDGMENT : Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18.07.2016, whereby, selection and appointment of the petitioner as "Angan Bari Karyakarta" has been cancelled. The private respondent No. 4 has been selected at the same time. The cancellation of selection of the petitioner is precisely on the ground that she is not having toilet at her residence, thus was not eligible for appointment as "Aangan Bari Karyakarta". The petitioner has already preferred an appeal to the competent Authority though it has not yet been decided. The writ petition has been filed for the reason that private respondent has been engaged as "Aangan Bari Karyakarta" though she alleged to have made false declaration in her application form. It is showing her to be a member of "Jyoti Yojna" though the private respondent is not a member of the said scheme. 2. The facts given above show that the grounds have been raised not only about eligibility of the private respondent but even of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for caveator-private respondent has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is in the light of the appeal already preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order. The petitioner cannot take two remedies simultaneously thus prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition on the aforesaid ground itself. 4. It is also submitted that respondent No. 4 is a member of Jyoti Yojna, therefore, declaration was rightly given in the application. 5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that after the impugned order, petitioner has already preferred a representation/appeal. The instructions issued for appointment of "Aangan Bari Karyakarta" show remedy of appeal before the authority concerned if someone is aggrieved by the selection. The representation preferred by the petitioner can be considered to be an appeal against the impugned order. 7. In view of above, the present writ petition would not be maintainable. It is, however, a fact that both the parties are making allegations against each other. It is for non existence of toilet at residence of petitioner. The allegation has been made against the private respondent showing her to be a member of Jyoti Yojna whereas she is not a member of Jyoti Yojna. 8. It is, however, a fact that both the parties are making allegations against each other. It is for non existence of toilet at residence of petitioner. The allegation has been made against the private respondent showing her to be a member of Jyoti Yojna whereas she is not a member of Jyoti Yojna. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with following directions :- (i) The representation submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 18.07.2016 be treated as appeal and it should be considered and decided within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the authority to whom appeal lies. (ii) The disposal of the appeal would be after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is taking into consideration the allegations made against each other. (iii) The order dated 18.07.2016 is kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeal of the petitioner, as directed above. (iv) The Appellate Authority is directed to consider the issue properly and without pre-determination. If any of the parties has made false declaration then it would be at liberty to make them ineligible for appointment. (v) If it is found that both the parties have made false declaration then both of them can also be declared ineligible. The appeal would, accordingly, be decided by considering declarations of both the parties and it would be by a speaking order. Accordingly, both the parties would not be allowed to work as Aanganbari Karyakarta till disposal of the appeal.