JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The petitioner by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of directions to respondent No. 1 and for granting the following substantive relief to the petitioner: “That the report dated 12.08.2011 contained in Annexure P-1 and decision dated 30.07.2014 passed in Case No. 11 of 2011 by respondent No. 1 contained in Annexure P-4 may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. The key facts, as per the petitioner, which are imperative for the adjudication of the present case, are that Tehsildar, Kangra, submitted his report (Annexure P-1), dated 12.08.2011, to ADM, Kangra, wherein he has depicted the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.16,742/- from the year 2007 and his earlier income certificate was cancelled. It is further averred that while computing the income of the petitioner, the income of her mother-in-law, received as pension, was also considered. As per the petitioner, her mother-in-law resides separately and to this effect she has annexed copy of Pariwar register (Annexure P-2). The petitioner challenged the report of the Tehsildar, by way of filing appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1 herein), wherein the petitioner asserted that her mother-in-law resides separately, she was not heard and no remarks were made qua the income of respondent No. 2. It is further contended by the petitioner herein that respondent No. 2 hails from a rich family. However, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 30.07.2014. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of respondent No. 1, the petitioner preferred this petition alleging that the decision of the learned Appellate Authority is wrong, illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Lastly, she has prayed that the report dated 12.08.2011 and the decision of the learned Appellate Authority may be quashed and set aside. 3. Respondent No. 1 did not file any reply to the petition. Respondent No. 2, by filing reply to the petition, has resisted the claim of the petitioner. Precisely, respondent No. 2 averred that mother-in-law of the petitioner lives with her and they have a joint family. The replying respondent has also produced copy of Pariwar register (Annexure-R/1). It has also been averred that mother-inlaw of the petitioner also draws monthly family pension to the tune of Rs.2683/- (two thousand six hundred eighty three). Precisely, respondent No. 2 averred that mother-in-law of the petitioner lives with her and they have a joint family. The replying respondent has also produced copy of Pariwar register (Annexure-R/1). It has also been averred that mother-inlaw of the petitioner also draws monthly family pension to the tune of Rs.2683/- (two thousand six hundred eighty three). As per the replying respondent, the mother-in-law of the petitioner received Rs.30,246/- and Rs.32,886/- in the years 2006 and 2007, respectively. To this effect, respondent No. 2 has also annexed copies of family pension and affidavit (Annexures R/3 and R/4). It is further contended that father-in-law of respondent No. 2 is 40% disable and her son is also disable. The replying respondent averred that Tehsildar, Kangra, has rightly computed the annual income of the petitioner and he has also rightly cancelled her previous income certificate. Lastly, it has been prayed that the decisions of Tehsildar, Kangra, and respondent No. 1 are correct and the petition may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel/Additional Advocate General for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner comes from lower strata of the society and her income has been wrongly calculated by Tehsildar, Kangra, by taking into consideration the pension of her mother-in-law. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the scheme for Anganwari Workers has been promulgated to provide employment opportunities to those who really need employment. He has further argued that respondent No. 2 was having very less income and on inquiry it was found that the income of the petitioner was more, thus the Tehsildar, has rightly cancelled the certificate of the petitioner and the said decision was also upheld by the learned Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1) after correctly appreciating the facts. He has prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that she has a handicap son and her father-in-law is also 40% disable. It has been further argued that respondent No. 2 has been rightly appointed after cancelling the income certificate of the petitioner, thus she has a right to continue on the said post. 7. Annexure P-2, that is, copy of Pariwar register, the mother-in-law of the petitioner has been shown as family member alongwith the petitioner. It has been further argued that respondent No. 2 has been rightly appointed after cancelling the income certificate of the petitioner, thus she has a right to continue on the said post. 7. Annexure P-2, that is, copy of Pariwar register, the mother-in-law of the petitioner has been shown as family member alongwith the petitioner. So, as per the policy, the mother-in-law of the petitioner is part of the family of the petitioner for calculating the income of the family. Now, I would like to advert to the second question, whether the pension, which is being drawn by the mother-in-law of the petitioner, is to be calculated towards the income of the family or not. The pension amount goes to the family of the petitioner and they use the same for their well being. Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity in the report of the Tehsildar, Kangra, whereby the income of the family of the petitioner was calculated as Rs.16,742/- per month, which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. The income of the family of the petitioner has been rightly ciphered as Rs.16,742/- per month, which is much more than Rs.7500/- per month, thus there is no illegality committed by the Tehsildar, Kangra, as well as by the learned Appellate Authority (respondent No. 1). At the same point of time, respondent No. 2, who was having lesser income, is otherwise also most eligible and needy person for being appointed as Anganwari Worker. As far as the action of Tehsildar, Kangra, in cancelling the income certificate of the petitioner, is concerned, this Court, after taking into consideration the income of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who is member of the family of the petitioner, as per the pariwar register, finds that no illegality has been committed by him. Lastly, as the petitioner does not fall within the income criteria for the post of Anganwari Worker, this Court finds no merits in the instant petition, which deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.