JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- "It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may very kindly be allowed and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents to the following effect:- (a) To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent No. 4 to decide Annexure P-6 (objections with regard to the jurisdiction) in a time bound manner first before entertaining the Appeal (Annexure P-5) on merits against the appointment of Petitioner as an Aanganwadi Worker. Or in the alternative (b) To issue writ in the nature of Prohibition to direct the Respondent No. 4 not to proceed with the Appeal (Annexure P-5) being without jurisdiction and not maintainable on the grounds as mentioned in the present Petition." 2. When arguments were being advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, he informed the Court that the private respondent stands appointed as Patwari with the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which fact has not been disputed by learned Counsel for the private respondent. 3. Be that as it may, having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the Annexures appended with the petition, this Court is satisfied that the appeal which has been filed by the private respondent against the appointment of present petitioner as Aanganwari Worker at Aanganwari Centre, Jyor, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. is otherwise not maintainable. It is borne out from the record of the case that initially the private respondent was appointed as Aanganwari Worker at Aanganwari Centre, Jyor, vide process, in which, petitioner also participated for appointment against the post in issue. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the private respondent, the petitioner challenged the income certificate which stood issued to the private respondent, on the strength of which, she was appointed as Aanganwari Worker at Aanganwari Centre, Jyor, before the appropriate Authority. In the inquiry which was conducted qua the veracity of the income certificate which was issued to the private respondent, the same was found not correctly reflecting the income of the candidate. On the basis of the said inquiry, income certificate was set aside by the appropriate Authority. In the inquiry which was conducted qua the veracity of the income certificate which was issued to the private respondent, the same was found not correctly reflecting the income of the candidate. On the basis of the said inquiry, income certificate was set aside by the appropriate Authority. Thereafter in the appeal which was filed against the appointment of the private respondent by the present petitioner under the guidelines framed by the State Government pertaining to the appointment of Aanganwari Workers, the appointment of the private respondent was set aside by the Appellate Authority and the petitioner was appointed. Further appeal preferred by the private respondent against the order passed by first Appellate Authority was dismissed. 4. In this background, the private respondent was having no legal right to assail appointment of the present petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Clause 12 of the Guidelines framed by the Government for appointment against the post of Aanganwari worker. This is for the reason that it was in an appeal filed under same Clause by the present petitioner that the appointment of the private respondent was set aside. Private respondent assailed the order so passed by the Appellate Authority unsuccessfully before the next Appellate Authority. It is not clear as to whether any further proceedings were preferred by the private respondent against the order that was passed by the second Appellate Authority. Meaning thereby that the order vide which her appointment was set aside by the first Appellate Authority in an appeal under Clause 12 of the Guidelines filed by the present petitioner, attained finality. Therefore, appointment of the petitioner pursuant to an order passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal under Clause 12 of the Guidelines was not amenable for scrutiny in an appeal under Clause 12 of the said Guidelines afresh by the unsuccessful candidate, i.e. present private respondent. The Guidelines in issue in fact do not envisage any such appeal. Therefore, the appeal per se is not maintainable and filing of the same is nothing but abuse of process of law by the private respondent. In fact, the proceedings which stand initiated on the basis of Annexure P-5 are without jurisdiction. 5. The Guidelines in issue in fact do not envisage any such appeal. Therefore, the appeal per se is not maintainable and filing of the same is nothing but abuse of process of law by the private respondent. In fact, the proceedings which stand initiated on the basis of Annexure P-5 are without jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and appeal filed by the private respondent (Annexure P-5) before the Appellate Authority is held to be not maintainable and proceedings initiated pursuant thereto accordingly are quashed and set aside with direction to the Authority concerned not to proceed with the appeal so filed before it by the private respondent. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of.