D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected by Am -Sabha of the concerned village on 15th January, 2007 as Anganbari Sevika and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was sent for approval by the Government. The name of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents as Anganbari Sevika and Respondent No. 9 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika of the village, in question and therefore, present petition has been preferred.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was validly and legally selected by Amsabha, which was held on 15th January, 2007 in Madgari North Tola, Village Madgari, district Garhwa. Thereafter, the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents. The petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner is a resident of the concerned village and she was fulfilling all the criteria for appointment as Anganbari Sevika. Educational qualification of the candidates were also considered by the concerned Am -sabha and thereafter the petitioner was selected and therefore, services of the petitioner can not be terminated and the respondent no. 9 can not be appointed. Counsel for the State submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that initially an Am Sabha was held on 6th November, 2006 and the respondent no. 9 was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. Her name was recommended for approval, which was contested by the petitioner and second Am -Sabha was held on 15th January, 2007. In fact, name of respondent no. 9 was already recommended by the previous Am Sabha, which was held on 6th November, 2006 and there is no reason for convening the second Am Sabha on 15th January, 2007. The second Am Sabha was held on 15th January, 2007 and the petitioner 's name was recommended and on scrutiny it was found that marks obtained by the petitioner was lower than the marks obtained by the respondent no.9. Petitioner has secured 46.2 %, while respondent no. 9 has secured 47.6%. Rest of the criteria for selection of both the candidates were same and therefore, respondent no. 9 was selected as an Anganbari Sevika and the name of the petitioner was not accepted by the State Authority.
(3.) I have heard counsel appearing for the respondent no. 9, who has canvassed that in fact respondent no. 9 was already selected by the first Am Sabha dated 6th November, 2006. Her name was already sent for approval, but unnecessarily the State Authorities have ordered for holding second Am Sabha. In fact, the petitioner has obtained lower marks than the respondent no. 9 and therefore, rightly, the petitioner 'sname has not been recommended by the respondents and accordingly, the respondent no. 9 has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika of the concerned Anganbari Centre.;