WP(C) 3483/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms P Chakrabo rty, learned standing counsel for Social Welfare Department, appearing for the r espondent Nos.1 to 4. None appeares for the respondent No.5. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order dated 13 May 2010 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Chhaygaon Integrate d Child Development Project, disengaging the petitioner and engaging the respond ent No.5 as anganwadi worker at Balasiddhi anganwadi center, basically on the gr ound that before issuance of such order, she has not been served with any notice and thereby denied the opportunity of being heard. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the process of selection undert aken by the authority, she was engaged as anganwadi worker vide order dated 23 D ecember 2009 and accordingly she reported for duty and while discharging her dut ies, the CDPO, by the impugned order dated 13 May 2010, has disengaged her and, at her place, respondent No.5 has been engaged. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petit ioner has been engaged on basis of the selection made, her engagement cannot be cancelled, without serving any notice upon her as has been done in the instant c ase. Contesting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 filed affida vit-in-opposition contending interalia that in the selection conducted for the p urpose of engagement of anganwadi workers at the center in question, the petitio ner although secured 61.7 marks and thus placed at 2nd position she was offered the engagement vide order dated 23 December 2009, ignoring the claim of the resp ondent No.5, who secured 62.5 marks in total and thus placed at the top of the s elect list. According to respondent No.4, since the order of engagement was issu ed by mistake, the same has been rectified vide order dated 13 May 2010. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record produced by learned standing counsel. From records, it appears that the respondent No.5 had secured 62.5 marks and the petitioner secur ed 61.7 marks in the selection test. The authority, therefore, ought not to have issued the order of engagement to the petitioner as has been done by the order dated 23 December 2009. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submit ted that in the final result-sheet prepared, there are certain overwriting in re spect of the marks given by the SDMO in interview. I have perused the individual result-sheets maintained by each of the members of the selection committee, wherefrom it appears that the SDMO, who was one of the members of the committee, awarded 5 marks to the respondent No.5. In the final result-sheet prepared, maybe the figure 4 was initially put wrongly but the same was subsequently corrected as 5, which, in fact was the marks allotted by the s aid member to the respondent No.5. The petitioner having not secured the highest marks, was not entitled to the order of engagement and as such, the authority has not committed any illega lity in issuing the order dated 13 May 2010, disengaging the petitioner and enga ging the respondent No.5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, and hence it is dismissed. Needless to say that the authority shall pay the honorarium to the petitioner, for the period she rendered service. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.