H.R. Panwar, J.—By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the order impugned dt. 20.01.2006 (Annex.7) and a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganvadi Worker in pursuance of the Resolution No.33 dt. 17.01.2006 (Annex.6) passed in Gram Sabha meeting at village Bhag Talai and also seeks a direction to provide training to the petitioner for the post of Anganvadi Worker. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Sakroda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur and having educational qualification of Senior Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Rajasthan in the year 2000 vide Annex.3, applied for the post of Anganvadi worker as the respondents invited applications for appointment on the post of Anganwadi workers and Anganvadi Assistants vide Annex.4. According to the advertisement Annex.4, the selections were to be held from 16.01.2006 to 31.01.2006 and eligibility for appointment on the post of Anganwadi worker has been mentioned in the advertisement Annex.4 itself which provides that the eligibility for the Anganvadi worker is (i) Local Bahu (ii) 10th pass (iii) age 21 to 45 years. Vide Annex.5 the procedure for selection on the post of Anganwadi worker has been provided. In clause 6 of Annex.5 it has been provided that priority should be given to widows, divorcees, member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and lastly it was mentioned that if the candidate is having equal priority in other seniority, then the woman having higher educational qualification will be given preference. The petitioner applied for the post and appeared before Gram Sabha and vide resolution No. 33, the petitioner was selected for the post of Anganvadi worker for village Bhag Talai as in the result it has been stated that the petitioner is 10th passed, aged 23 years having 55.09% marks and stood at serial No.1 in merit, Pushpa W/o Dalchand Tak is 11th pass, aged 26 years having 51.09% marks and respondent No.5 Smt. Pushpa W/o Sunil is 10 pass, aged has not been mentioned and having 40.55% marks. However, vide Annex.7 dt. However, vide Annex.7 dt. 20.01.2006, the selection and appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and instead the respondent No.5 was selected and appointed on the post of Anganvadi worker at village Bhag Talai. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seema Kumari Sharma vs. State of H.P. and Anr., JT 1998 (7) SC 465 and a decision of this Court in Smt. Madhubala vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2962/1999 decided on 06.01.2000. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent State stating therein that the respondent No.5 is having higher qualification and on the basis of higher qualification, the Gram Panchayat finalized and decided to select and appoint the respondent No.5 as Anganvadi worker. 5. A reply to the writ petition has also been filed by the respondent No.5 stating therein that at the time of submission of the application form, the petitioner has disclosed her qualification as having passed secondary school examination whereas the non-petitioner No.5 had passed her senior secondary examination and therefore, possessing higher qualification and thus, the Gram Sabha was justified in selecting and appointing the respondent No.5. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that the respondent No.5 possesses the higher qualification than the petitioner is concerned, the document Annex.6 is the basic document which is Resolution No.33 of the Gram Sabha, in which the name of the petitioner Smt. Sugna has been shown at serial No.1 having education qualification 10th, aged 23 years and she secured 55.09% marks, whereas the name of respondent No.5 finds place at serial No.3 in the said resolution and education qualification has been shown as 10th pass, age has not been mentioned and she secured 40.55% marks. Thus, before the Gram Sabha, it appears that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 both came with a case that both are 10th pass. However, subsequently, the respondent No.5 agitated that she is 12th pass and on the basis of her educational qualification, she has been selected and appointed vide Annex.7 stating therein that she is having a qualification of senior secondary examination. However, subsequently, the respondent No.5 agitated that she is 12th pass and on the basis of her educational qualification, she has been selected and appointed vide Annex.7 stating therein that she is having a qualification of senior secondary examination. At any rate, at the time of selection, so far as education qualification is concerned, the petitioner and the respondent No.5 stood on parity as their educational qualification as disclosed before the Gram Sabha was 10th pass. However, a mark sheet of senior secondary examination has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annex.3 which shows that the petitioner also possessed senior secondary qualification i.e. 10+2 in the year 2000 and at the relevant date of consideration she was possessing the senior secondary qualification and therefore, even assuming that subsequently the respondent No.5 filed the application or raised the objection saying that she is possessing higher qualification i.e. Senior Secondary, but at any rate, at the time of selection, even the respondent No.5 did not come with a case that she has passed the senior secondary examination and before the Gram Panchayat, both having 10 pass, and so far as the petitioner is concerned, she stood much higher as she secured 55.09% marks, whereas the respondent No.5 secured only 40.55% marks. So far as the guidelines given for selection and appointment vide Annex.5 is concerned, the priority has to be given to the widows, thereafter to the divorcees and members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Indisputably, the petitioner is member of the Scheduled Caste. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents and even the petitioner stands higher in priority being member of the Scheduled Caste. 8. Viewed from any stand point, the petitioner is equally qualified to that of the respondent No.5 as the petitioner and respondent No.5 both have passed senior secondary examination. The petitioner secured much higher marks than the respondent No.5 i.e. 55.09%, whereas the respondent No.5 secured 40.55% marks and the petitioner stood at serial No.1 in the select list vide Annex.6. Viewed from any stand point, the petitioner is equally qualified to that of the respondent No.5 as the petitioner and respondent No.5 both have passed senior secondary examination. The petitioner secured much higher marks than the respondent No.5 i.e. 55.09%, whereas the respondent No.5 secured 40.55% marks and the petitioner stood at serial No.1 in the select list vide Annex.6. Without affording an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the selection and appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and instead the respondent No.5 has been selected and appointed merely because a stand has been taken by respondent No.5 that she possesses higher qualification which is incorrect as the petitioner is equally possessing the qualification of senior secondary. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the respondents fell in error in setting aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganvadi worker in village Bhag Talai and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order Annex.7 dt. 20.01.2006 appointing the respondent No.5 and setting aside the appointment of the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and if otherwise found eligible, appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganvadi worker and for that purpose if the training is necessary she may be provided such training. This exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. * * * * *