IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4457 of 2010. Date of decision: 18.11.2010 Rajni Devi. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 3 to 6. Mr.Shrawan Dogra, counsel for respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.2 as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Arankothi, Tehsil Sungernagar, District Mandi, H.P. This petition can be disposed of on a short ground. The result-sheet showing the marks obtained by the various candidates was obtained 2 by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and the same has been attached as Annexure P/17 to this petition. A perusal of this result-sheet shows that the respondent No.2 was selected since she had obtained a total of 10.11 marks whereas the petitioner had only obtained 9.98 marks. The other three candidates are much below the petitioner and the respondent No.2. Sh.Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 was wrongly awarded 1.16 marks for experience. According to him, respondent No.2 could have only been awarded 1 mark for experience and if this change is made then the petitioner will have the highest marks, i.e., 9.98 marks whereas the respondent No.2 would be left with 9.95 marks. The whole case revolves around the interpretation to be given to Clause 7 of the guidelines which relates to the allocation and awarding of marks under different heads. We are concerned with Clause 7-B which reads as follow:- 3 “B) Maximum 2 marks for experience to be given as under:- . One mark for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for one year or Shishu Palak of ECCE centre for 10 months. Or . Two marks for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for two or more years.” As per this guideline, a candidate is entitled to maximum of two marks for experience. if a candidate has experience as Anganwari helper, Balsevika/Balwari teacher/nursery teacher for one year then such candidate is entitled to one mark and if the candidate has been Shishu Palak of ECCE for 10 months then also she is entitled for one mark. If a candidate has served in the aforesaid posts for two or more years then such candidate is entitled to two marks. The question which arises is “Whether the respondent No.2 could be awarded 0.16 marks in addition to one mark for the experience of one year and two months which she had as Anganwari worker?” 4 I am of the considered opinion that Clause 7-B does not envisage the award of percentage of marks. In Clause 7-B itself, the framers of the guidelines have envisaged percentage of marks being awarded in respect of educational qualification. But when no percentage of marks are envisaged in the guidelines then a person having one year’s experience but less than two years can only be awarded one mark. A person who has worked for 18 months cannot be granted 1.5 marks for experience. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that Tula Devi who had 14 months experience could have only been granted one mark and not 1.16 marks. If this .16 is reduced from the total marks of the respondent No.2, she would only have 9.95 marks and would thus rank junior to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The selection of the respondent No.2 as Anganwari worker is set aside and the respondents are directed to offer this post to the petitioner on or before 31.3.2011. 5 The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. November 18, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge