WP(C) 585/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B .K. Sharma, learned SC, SWD. The matter relates to selection and appointment of Anganwadi Worker for No. 2 Kakila Trilosan Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner was the aspirant for the assignment. However, she was not selected and accordingly could not be appointed . According to the petitioner, there was illegality in the selection inasm uch as one of the members of the selection committee did not sign in the minutes of the selection. Further stand of the petitioner is that she being better qual ified and better meritorious, the selection committee ought to have selected her . The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the contentions rai sed in the writ petition. It has been stated that as against 70.8 marks secured by the private respondent (respondent No. 7), the petitioner secured 51.8 marks. Thus, naturally the respondent No. 7 was recommended for appointment. In fact, the respondent No. 7 has secured highest marks amongst the candidates. As regards the allegation of absence of one of the members, the responde nts have stated in the counter affidavit that one of the members of the selectio n committee could not attend the selection due to her illness and the same was r ecorded in the proceeding register. It has further been stated that mere absence of one of the members out of four members could not render the selection illega l. In this connection they have also referred to the selection guidelines in ter ms of which presence of three members of the selection committee would constitut e the forum. The aforesaid stand of the respondents has not been denied by the petiti oner by filing any affidavit in reply. Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accord ingly, the writ petition is dismissed.