JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. This is petitioner’s third writ petition instituted in this Court assailing the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Helper on 21.07.2007 in Anganwari Centre Susaya, Post Office Piplughat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. 2. Facts: (i) Pursuant to a selection process initiated by the respondent-Department, Smt. Sunita Devi-respondent No.6 was selected as Anganwari Helper on 21.07.2007. Petitionerfiled an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, assailing the selection of respondent No.6. The appeal was dismissed on 29.06.2009. (ii) Feeling aggrieved against the rejection of her appeal, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division. The Divisional Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for fresh adjudication. The Deputy Commissioner, Solan once again dismissed the appeal on22.10.2011. (iii) Petitioner next filed a Civil Writ Petition, bearing CWP No.11563 of 2011. The writ petition was allowed on 12.05.2017. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 22.10.2011 was quashed and set aside, being non-speaking. Operative part of the judgment dated 12.05.2017 reads as under:- “16. In this view of the matter as the order dated 22.10.2011 Annexure P6 passed by learned second appellate authority prima facie is non speaking and unreasoned order, the same is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second appellate authority with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Said authority shall also grant one opportunity to each of the parties to place on record documents if they so desire to produce in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the learned second appellate authority on 29.5.2017. Said authority is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any eventuality on or before 31st October, 2017. Till then private respondent shall be permitted to perform her duty. It is clarified that this court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and the authority shall be at liberty to adjudicate upon the appeal strictly on the basis of material on record. The petition is allowed in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application if any.” In compliance to the above direction, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan considered the matter afresh. The petition is allowed in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application if any.” In compliance to the above direction, the Deputy Commissioner, Solan considered the matter afresh. Petitioner, inter alia, contended before the Deputy Commissioner that:- (i) As per eligibility criteria, annual family income of the candidates could not exceed Rs.8000/-. Income certificate furnished by respondent No.6 showed her annual family income to be Rs.7500/-, whereas petitioner’s family income was Rs.7000/- per annum. Therefore, petitioner was required to be given preference for having lesser annual income. (ii) Respondent No.6 was not eligible to participate in the selection process as she was member of joint family on the date of interview. The Deputy Commissioner rejected above contentions as also certain other grounds taken by the petitioner. It was held that if the candidate’s annual income was not more than Rs.8000/-, she was eligible to participate and further that policy did not provide for additional marks or preference to a candidate having lesser income than others within the range of income limit of Rs.8000/- per annum. Petitioner’s second ground of respondent No.6 belonging to joint family as on the date of interview and therefore, not eligible for the post, was also not accepted. The appeal was, therefore, yet again dismissed vide a detailed order passed on 19.08.2017. (iv) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted her second writ petition, being CWP No.2791 of 2017. Almost same grounds were urged by her as taken before and decided by the Deputy Commissioner in the order dated 19.08.2017. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2020. The Court did not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 19.08.2017, vide which the Deputy Commissioner upheld the appointment of respondent No.6, inter alia, by holding that simply because the selected candidate belonged to a joint family, the same was ipso facto not a disqualification because there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the income of the joint family was in excess of the maximum limit envisaged in the guidelines pertaining to the appointment of Anganwari Worker and Anganwari Helper. In fact, the order specifically noticed that during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not even point out any document on record, from which it could be inferred that the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner were perverse or contrary to the record. In fact, the order specifically noticed that during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner could not even point out any document on record, from which it could be inferred that the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner were perverse or contrary to the record. It appears that learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter made a submission before the Court that it would be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the income certificate of respondent No.6 dated 15.05.2007 before the competent authority. This request was allowed and accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to assail the income certificate before the competent authority. Observations relevant to the context from the judgment dated 27.02.2020 read as under:- “3. In compliance to the direction which was so passed by this Court, learned Deputy Commissioner, Solan passed order dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure P-13), vide which learned Deputy Commissioner upheld the appointment of private respondent inter alia by holding that simply because the selected candidate belonged to a joint family, the same was if so facto not a disqualification because there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the income of the joint family was in excess of the maximum limit envisaged in the guidelines pertaining to the appointment of Anganwari Worker and Anganwari Helper. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner though has not been able to point out to any document on record from which it could be inferred that the findings so returned by the learned Deputy Commissioner are perverse and contrary to record, however, he submits that in these circumstances, as the bone of contention will be the initial income certificate which was issued by the authority concerned in favour of private respondent, it will be in the interest of justice in case the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to challenge the income certificate before the appropriate authority i.e. the income certificate dated 15.05.2007, which is on record of this petition at page 34 of the Paper Book. 5. The request so made by learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed and petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail said income certificate before the authority concerned. 5. The request so made by learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed and petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to assail said income certificate before the authority concerned. It is clarified that in case said income certificate is assailed by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today, then the authority concerned shall decide the appeal on merit without going into the issue of limitation etc., however, after adhering to the principal of natural justice. After the adjudication of any such appeal etc., in case the petitioner is so advised, she will be at liberty to approach this Court afresh seeking all the reliefs which stand prayed for by way of present writ petition including challenge which has been raised to Annexure P-13 i.e. order dated 19.08.2017, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.” (v) Petitioner thereafter moved an application/ appeal on 18.03.2021 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Arki, District Solan for cancelling the income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 15.05.2007. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned dismissed petitioner’s appeal on 27.08.2024. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and considered the case file. 4. Consideration: (i) One of the conditions of the prescribed eligibility criteria at the relevant time was that only such female candidate can apply ‘whose annual income does not exceed Rs.8000/-, to be certified by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar’.Income certificate dated 15.05.2007 issued in favour of respondent No.6 depicted her family income from all sources @ Rs.7500/- per annum. Respondent No.6, as per this certificate, was thus eligible to apply for the post in the year 2007.It is significant to notice that respondent No.6 was selected and appointed as an Anganwari Helper on 21.07.2007. Ever since then, petitioner is before different courts/authorities challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.6. However, till 2017, petitioner never urged the ground in any Court of Law including this Court that income certificate issued to respondent No.6 on 15.05.2017 was not correct. Petitioner’s only ground relevant in this regard was that as per the respective family income certificates issued to the petitioner (Rs.7000/- per annum) and respondent No.6 (Rs.7500/- per annum), petitioner having lesser annual income, ought to have been preferred and selected. Petitioner’s only ground relevant in this regard was that as per the respective family income certificates issued to the petitioner (Rs.7000/- per annum) and respondent No.6 (Rs.7500/- per annum), petitioner having lesser annual income, ought to have been preferred and selected. All the authorities/ courts did not find any merit in this contention and held that having income not exceeding Rs.8000/- per annum was only a condition of eligibility & nothing more than that. Petitioner and respondent No.6 having family income of less than Rs.8000/- per annum were eligible to apply for the post. This conclusion, in the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner while dismissing petitioner’s appeal, was put to test by the petitioner in CWP No.2791 of 2017. The Court affirmed the impugned reasoning. It is at this stage that petitioner, ten years after the selection and appointment of respondent No.6, took liberty to assail the income certificate issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 15.05.2007. That’s how this third round of litigation against selection of respondent No.6 started. (ii) Petitioner’s new allegations taken for the first time in the year 2017 (third round of litigation) were that respondent No.6 had intentionally concealed her income in order to get the income certificate for less than Rs.8000/- per annum in order to enable her to be appointed as Anganwari Helper. (ii)(a) The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), vide impugned order, has noticed that respondent No.6’s family was owner of land in two mauzas, i.e. Mauza Saryanj and Mauza Susaya. In Mauza Saryanj, her family possessed 21-6 bighas out of total 63-19 bighas. The contention urged for the petitioner before the authority was that respondent No.6 in collusion with the Halqua Patwari, had wrongly got mentioned in the report that her husband owned land share of 5-12 bigha instead of 6-12 bigha. That this was done in order to get the income certificate for lesser income. (ii)(b) Respondent No.6’s defence was that she had never furnished false information to the competent authority to obtain the income certificate. Income certificate issued in her favour was valid and correct. Income from the share of land owned by her husband and the share owned by other family members was categorically mentioned in the report of the Halqua Patwari. Income from land assessed of the share of her husband was Rs.1400/- and total income including other sources was correctly assessed at Rs.7500/- per annum. Income from the share of land owned by her husband and the share owned by other family members was categorically mentioned in the report of the Halqua Patwari. Income from land assessed of the share of her husband was Rs.1400/- and total income including other sources was correctly assessed at Rs.7500/- per annum. (ii)(c) The impugned order indicates that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned called for a fresh report from the concerned Patwari on 23.12.2023. On perusing the earlier report of the concerned Patwari dated 11.05.2007 as also the report dated 23.12.2023, the competent authority found that Halqua Patwari in its report dated 11.05.2007 had inadvertently mentioned the land in the share of respondent No.6’s husband as 5-12 bighas instead of 6-12 bighas (inclusive of both the villages); The fault for this lay with the Halqua Patwari and not with respondent No.6; Income from the land in question had been assessed at Rs.250/- per bigha; Therefore, even if one more bigha is added on pro-rata basis, total income from agricultural land would have been Rs.1650/- per annum instead of Rs.1400/-. Finding that total income of respondent No.6 would still remain below Rs.8000/- per annum, therefore, no merit was found in petitioner’s claim qua cancellation of respondent No.6’s income certificate that was issued in her favour on 15.05.2007. Thus, on the basis of facts, record and evidence available, learned authority held that: There had been no concealment of any material fact by respondent No.6. A mistake about the land share of her husband was committed by the concerned authority; But this mistake was inconsequential and did not affect either her income certificate or her eligibility to apply for the post. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire land holding of respondent No.6’s joint family was to be considered while assessing her income and not just her husband’s share alone. It has already been held by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 19.08.2017 that copies of jamabandis produced by the petitioner are only corroborative evidence, which cannot be used against respondent No.6. In fact, during previous rounds of litigation, the petitioner did not even question the validity of annual family income of respondent No.6. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 19.08.2017 had been affirmed by this Court on 27.02.2020 while disposing of CWP No.2791 of 2017 instituted by the petitioner. In fact, during previous rounds of litigation, the petitioner did not even question the validity of annual family income of respondent No.6. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 19.08.2017 had been affirmed by this Court on 27.02.2020 while disposing of CWP No.2791 of 2017 instituted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while canvassing the writ petition (CWP No.2791 of 2017), as noticed in the judgment dated 27.02.2020, could not even point out any document on record, from which it could be inferred that the findings returned by the Deputy Commissioner were perverse or contrary to the record. The Deputy Commissioner had upheld the selection and appointment of respondent No.6, inter alia, by holding that simply because the selected candidate belonged to a joint family, the same was not ipso facto a disqualification because there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that the income of the joint family was in excess of the maximum limit envisaged in the guidelines. It appears that petitioner’s altogether new contention before the learned authority below, in her third round of litigation was to the effect that report of the Halqua Patwari given on 11.05.2007 was simply based upon the share of land of respondent No.6’s husband determined as 5-12 bighas instead of 6-12 bighas. The competent authority in the order (impugned now) has held that even if respondent No.6’s husband land share is taken as 6-12 bighas as alleged by the petitioner, then also, respondent No.6’s income would still remain within the outer limit of Rs.8000/- per annum as the income from land had been assessed as Rs.250/- per bigha, i.e. Rs.250X6-12= Rs.1530/-. There is nothing on record to suggest number of joint family members of respondent No.6’s family. The record does not demonstrate that respondent No.6 had concealed any material fact while obtaining the income certificate. (iv) It can also not be ignored here that respondent No.6 is a lady working as Anganwari Helper ever since 21.07.2007. Almost 20 years have now gone by from the selection and appointment of respondent No.6. Petitioner has been relentlessly, but unsuccessfully pursuing legal remedies against selection and appointment of respondent No.6. Grounds taken by the petitioner till 2017 for assailing respondent No.6’s selection and appointment have been turned down right till this Court. Petitioner has not been successful in her challenge. Petitioner has been relentlessly, but unsuccessfully pursuing legal remedies against selection and appointment of respondent No.6. Grounds taken by the petitioner till 2017 for assailing respondent No.6’s selection and appointment have been turned down right till this Court. Petitioner has not been successful in her challenge. Petitioner’s renewed contentions and efforts for assailing respondent No.6’s selection & appointment, as discussed above, have no merits. Even otherwise, at this stage, it will not be in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience to interfere with a selection process that culminated in the year 2007. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Susaya made on 21.07.2007. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.