1 2025:HHC:31351 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 57 of 2025 Date of Decision : 11.09.2025 ________________________________________________________ Roshani Devi …..Appellant Versus State of HP & others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar and Ms. Muskan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order dated 20.11.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 489 of 2024, Roshani Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 relegated for assailing the Income Certificate as provided in Caluse 28.1 of Chapter 18 of the H.P. Land Records Manual, 1992. 2. In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi in the appeal filed by the present appellant, whereby the appellant was aggrieved by the order of the Selection Committee dated 15.09.2023. 3. Apparently, the private respondent-Sapna Thakur as such had been selected as an Anganwari Worker for Centre Kotlu, ICDS Block Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi. The Authority had taken into consideration the fact that the allegation as such was that the Income Certificate produced as such was not liable to be commented upon as there was a procedure prescribed under the H.P. Land Records Manual, 1992 (amended in 2012) and the appellant was free to approach the appropriate Forum by challenging the Income Certificate of the private respondent. 3 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that by way of the Income Certificate having been issued to the private respondent initially on 18.08.2020 (Annexure P-3), the annual income of her family was shown to be not exceeding Rs.36,000/-, whereas the threshold limit as such was to be below Rs. 35,000/- per annum. It is thus submitted that the second Certificate dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure P-4), which was issued in favour of the private respondent two days later, was not liable to be considered as a valid certificate. Clause 28.1 of Chapter 18 of the H.P. Land Records Manual, 1992 reads as under:- “PROCEDURE FOR ISSUING VARIOUS CERTIFICATES Competent Officers to issue certificates 28.1. The Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar Mohal, Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Additional District Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner concerned shall be the competent authorities to issue all types of certificates within their respective jurisdictions. The next higher officer in the official hierarchy shall be the appellate authority for adjudication upon refusal of an officer competent to issue the certificate for issuing certificate or in case any person is aggrieved about issuance of a certificate to another person.” 4 5. A perusal of the same would go on to show that any person aggrieved by the issuance of a Certificate to another person can also agitate against the same and can raise a grievance. It was in such circumstances, that the learned Single Judge had relegated the appellant to the remedy as such, as provided under the H.P. Land Records Manual. 6. Keeping in view the limited power of the Appellate Authority as such regarding the selection aspect, once on the basis of the Income Certificate, a candidate had been considered, the selection as such could not have been faulted with, as has been held by the competent Authority and upheld by the learned Single Judge. Thus, it is not that the petitioner had been non-suited, on merits, and accordingly, the competent Authority had relegated the appellant to the remedy as such. 7. It is also to be noticed that the learned Single Judge had requisitioned the record of selection and came to the conclusion that the private respondent had submitted only one Income Certificate in terms of 5 annual income of Rs.34,000/- for the consideration of her candidatures for the post of Anganwari Worker and therefore, rightly concluded that it was not in the domain of the Authority in appeal challenging the selection to go into the veracity of the Income Certificate. 8. In the circumstances, we do not find that any injustice as such has been caused. Resultantly, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order passed by the appropriate Authority. 9. However, since the matter has been pending before this Court and the appellant has been agitating for her grievances as the selection process was finalized in September, 2020, if she prefers to file for her legal right within two weeks from today, against the issuance of the Income Certificate, the said Authority shall decide the issue on merits, rather than rejecting her case, on limitation. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld, with 6 the necessary relief to the limited extent. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. September 11, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.