IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.465 of 2026 Decided on : 11.08.2026 Nisha Devi ...Appellant Versus State of HP and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Peeyush Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2026, passed in CWP No.15541 of 2025, titled Nisha Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors., which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appointment of the present appellant as Anganwadi Helper was on the basis of an income certificate and, therefore, once the income certificate was bad, the foundation as such of the appointment was bad and resultantly 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- the learned Single Judge chose not to interfere in the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, sitting in an appeal over the appointment of the present appellant and who had set aside the order of said appointment, vide order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-4 at page 54 of the paper book). 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has argued that the petitioner's right of filing an appeal was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Collector vide order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure PA-1 at page 31 of the paper book), as not maintainable, and the appeal would have been maintainable under Clause 28.21, and it has been held to be not maintainable wrongly under Clause 28.1 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Record Manual, 1992. 3. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that the order dated 03.11.2025 was passed during the pendency of the writ petition. Apparently, no effort was made to amend the writ petition, which had been filed on 21.09.2025, and it was primarily against the inquiry report dated 28.07.2025, whereby the Tehsildar had cancelled the income certificate, and also the subsequent consequential order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, who had -3- allowed the appeal of the private respondent and had held that the de novo selection process be continued. 4. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the initial certificate of Below Poverty Line (BPL), which had been issued in favour of the present appellant on 22.11.2023 showing her income to be below Rs.50,000/-, was the subject matter of scrutiny and an inquiry by the issuing authority itself-the Tehsildar. As per the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-3 at page 54 of the paper book), it is clear that the proper procedure was followed and the statement of the employer of the husband of the present appellant was also recorded to show that the husband was working as an Assistant in Dental Lab, owned by one Sh. Sudershan Singh, and his earning was upto Rs.10,000/-, and earlier his income was Rs.7,000/-. Statement having been recorded, and the confession given by the husband that he had earned a salary of Rs.7,000/- led to the cancellation of the income certificate itself, which was the basis of the eligibility, as such to seek appointment as an Anganwadi Helper. 5. It was in such circumstances; the appeal was allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, keeping in view -4- the fact that the family income exceeded Rs.50,000/- and once it was found to be false and on account of concealment of facts, it has been rightly revoked, therefore, the foundation as such of the applicant’s selection, cannot be legally sustained. 6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that once the authority has come to the conclusion that the basis as such was on the ground that the income was not less than Rs.50,000/- and the matter has been enquired into and factually found that the income was much higher, in such circumstances, the removal had been done. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in LPA No.106 of 2017, titled Kaushlya Devi Vs. Hansa Devi and Ors., on 23.09.2024, wherein it was held that an appeal should have been preferred before the Sub Divisional Magistrate by the private respondent. A perusal of para 12 of the judgment would go on show that once there is a power for issuance of a certificate, there is also the power to withdraw the same. It was also observed that disputed issues were arising whereas, herein the case is based on confession of the husband of the -5- appellant. Having done so, and the order dated 03.11.2025 having not been challenged and keeping in view the fact that we are dealing with appointments having been made on the basis of a false certificate, or certificates not giving the true picture of income, and having taken the benefit of the Below Poverty Line category, and though having an income higher than required, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be liable to be invoked as it is purely discretionary jurisdiction and thus the writ petition has rightly been dismissed. 8. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is bereft of merit, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11th August, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)