JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order passed by the Appellate Authority vide per para 12 of the Guidelines for the appointment of Anganwari Worker/Helper under the ICDS Scheme/programme, in an appeal filed under Clause-12 thereof, by Smt. Kalpana Devi (respondent No.7), against the appointment of present petitioner as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Baga, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P., decided by learned Appellate Authority on 30.03.2017, vide which, learned Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal, set aside the appointment of petitioner as Anganwari Worker in the above mentioned Anganwari Centre and has directed Child Development Project Officer to appoint a candidate who is 3rd in the merit as per the Waiting List, against the post in issue, after holding that petitioner as also the candidate who was at number are in the Waiting List, were ineligible for appointment to the post in issue. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. Record demonstrates that after filing of the appeal against the appointment of the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered into the veracity of the Income Certificate submitted by the candidates concerned and outcome of the enquiry, which was so conducted by Tehsildar concerned, revealed that the Income Certificate which was filed by the petitioner, was an incorrect Income Certificate, in which she had concealed the actual income of the family. It is also borne out from the impugned order that report of Tehsildar, Gohar, revealed after re-verification of the income of the parties that income of present petitioner was Rs. 37,000/- per annum, which was much beyond the criteria i.e. Rs.20,000/- per annum and her income Certificate No.0611TE/2230/2014 dated 01.12.2015, produced at the time of interview for the post of Anganwari Worker, stood cancelled vide order No.TDR-Reader/7576-78, dated 24th December, 2016 and as a result thereof, the petitioner had become ineligible to be selected for the post in issue. 3. During the course of arguments, these factual averments, as are contained in order passed by the Appellate Authority, have not been disputed. 3. During the course of arguments, these factual averments, as are contained in order passed by the Appellate Authority, have not been disputed. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was not aware of the cancellation of her Income Certificate and she came to know about said fact only during the pendency of the appeal, but fact of the matter still remains that it is not in dispute that the Income Certificate, on the basis of which, petitioner was engaged as an Anganwari Worker, has been cancelled by the Authority concerned. 4. For record it is clarified further that the Income Certificate, on the basis of which petitioner had gained employment was earlier also held to be bad in law, on the basis of an enquiry, so held by Tehsildar, Chachiot, vide report/order dated 08.04.2016, in which Tehsildar held that income of petitioner was not Rs.17,000/-, but Rs.37,000/-. Appeal preferred by present petitioner against said order before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was allowed on 17.09.2016, with a further direction to Tehsildar, to pass a speaking order. Subsequent order on re-verification, which was passed by Tehsildar, dated 24.12.2016, is an outcome of the direction so issued in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 5. It is not in dispute that order so passed by Tehsildar has attained finality, as the same has not been assailed by petitioner. Therefore, as the genesis of the adjudication in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, is the factum of the Income Certificate issued in favour of petitioner having been rendered non-est being cancelled pursuant to the order passed by Tehsildar dated 24.12.2016, in my considered view, the Appellate Authority rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the appointment of petitioner. Petitioner could not have been permitted to continue even after it was found that she had gained employment by concealing the correct income of her family which was in excess of the maximum provided in the guidelines for appointment. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, in my considered view, does not calls for any interference. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.