WP(C) 3930/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitio ner and Mr. BK Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department appear ing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged th e order dated 22nd April, 2010 issued by the Child Development Project Officer ( CDPO) Dalgaon-Sialmari ICDS Project, Kharupetia, Darrang canceling the earlier c ommunication dated 28th January, 2010 issued by the said authority to the petiti oner allowing her to render the voluntary service as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwa di Centre No.8 on payment of monthly honorarium as fixed by the Government from time to time. The said order has been put to challenge on the ground t hat she was allowed to render such voluntary service on the basis of her selecti on and pursuant to which, she started rendering her services but such order has been cancelled without any notice. It appears that pursuant to the interview conducted on 8 th October, 2009, a select list was prepared selecting the candidate for renderi ng the voluntary service. In the said selection process, the petitioner also pa rticipated. The petitioner thereafter, was offered with the engagement vide comm unication dated 28th January, 2010 issued by the CDPO and accordingly, the petit ioner started rendering her voluntary service. The said order, however, has bee n cancelled by the CDPO by the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2010 on the grou nd that such communication dated 28th January, 2010 was issued wrongly though sh e was not selected for that purpose. This Court vide order dated 15th September, 2010 while a llowing time to the respondents to file affidavit also directed to produce the r elevant records for perusal. Accordingly, the affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the CDPO, the respondent No.4, contending inter alia that in respect of the Anganwadi Centre No.8, initially one Smti. Payal Shil was selected but afte r scrutiny of the record as it was found that she was under age being 17 (sevent een) years old, her selection was cancelled and thereafter, the communication da ted 28th January, 2010 wrongly issued to the petitioner though on the basis of t he marks obtained by her in such interview she was placed at the sixth position. The records produced by the learned Standing Counsel, So cial Welfare Department reveal that Smti. Payal Shil secured 59.75 marks and has therefore, secured 1st Position in such selection. The candidature of Payal Sh il, however, has been cancelled on the ground that she is under aged. In the pr esent writ petition the cancellation of the candidature of Payal Shil, is not in issue. The record, as produced by the learned Standing Counsel further reveals that one Smti. Ranu Saha secured 56.51 marks, one Gopa Saha secu red 53.15 marks, one Dipti Chakraborty secured 51.77 marks, one Pinki Saha secur ed 48.38 marks and one Kadbhanu secured 45.11 marks. The petitioner secured 41.6 6 marks in the said selection and thus placed at the bottom of the list, on the basis of the marks secured by her in the interview. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled for engagement, as there are other candidates who secured more m arks from the petitioner. That being the position, the CDPO ought not to have issu ed the communication dated 28th January, 2010 to the petitioner, which mistake h as been rectified by the CDPO by issuing the impugned order dated 22nd April, 20 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the pre sent writ petition to interfere with the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2010 p assed by the CDPO, Dalgaon-Sialmari ICDS Project canceling the offer made by him to the petitioner vide communication dated 28th January, 2010. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. No cost.