1 S.B. WRIT PETITION NO. 1893/2006 Smt. Santosh Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 4.4.2008 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. J. Gehlot, for the petitioner. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Addl. Adv. General. Mr. Anil Bachhawat, for the respondent No.7 **** By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the selection process adopted by the respondents No.2 and 3 while making appointment for Aanganwari Worker / Helper and also the appointment of respondent No.7 as Aanganwari Worker. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is tha the appointment accorded to the respondent no.7 is an outcome of extraneous consideration. As per the petitioner she was having higher qualification than the respondent No.7, therefore, she should have been appointed as Aanganwari Worker. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the respondent No.7 was eligible to be considered for appointment and by a competent mode of selection she was found more meritorious than the petitioner, thus, the appointment was accorded to her. Having considered the rival contentions I am of the view that no 2 illegality was committed by the respondents while giving appointment to the respondent No.7 as she was eligible to be considered for appointment as Aanganwari Worker. The selection committee determined her merit on basis of the marks obtained by her in the eligibility examination that is Class 10th. The petitioner may be having higher qualification but that can not be a sole criteria for claiming dominance over the other eligible candidates. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Jgoyal