JUDGMENT Prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika in Anganbari Sevika Kendra No. 3, Post-Jangalpur in the district of Dhanbad. The prayer has been made on the claim that the petitioner possesses all the necessary requisite qualifications for her appointment on the said post. 2. The petitioner’s case is that considering herself that she possesses all the requisite qualifications, she had applied for the post of Sevika on the aforesaid Centre but her application was rejected only on the ground that she does not find place in the B.P.L. list. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the refusal to acknowledge the petitioner’s candidature on the ground stated by the respondents are arbitrary and discriminatory as because one Pratima Mahto whose name also does not find place in the B.P.L. list has been granted appointment as Sevika in the Anganbari Seva Kendra No. 1 in the Village – Morang in the district of Dhanbad. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would explain that the instant writ application is based entirely on misconceived facts and is not maintainable. Learned counsel adds that as a matter of fact, all together three applications were received from various candidates, including the petitioner, for appointment on the post of Sevika in the Anganbari Sevika Kendra No. 3. It was found that the petitioner’s name did not find place in the B.P.L. list whereas the names of the other two candidates did find place in the list. Learned counsel explains further that since the eligibility criteria stipulates that the candidates who are below the poverty line should be given preference, the selection for the post was made in favour of one of the other two candidates and the post has since been filled up. Learned counsel explains further that though the candidate Pratima Mahto is not below the poverty line but her candidature was for another Centre namely Anganbari Seva Kendra No. 1 which was accepted on account of the fact that she was the only candidate who had applied for the said Kendra. 5. Learned counsel explains further that though the candidate Pratima Mahto is not below the poverty line but her candidature was for another Centre namely Anganbari Seva Kendra No. 1 which was accepted on account of the fact that she was the only candidate who had applied for the said Kendra. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner intervenes to submit that the ground taken by the respondents that candidates who are not below the poverty line are not to be considered, is totally erroneous and against the Rules laid down for the appointment of the Anganbari Sevikas. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the Rules, though appointment may be given to the candidates who are not below the poverty line but at the same time the Rules stipulate that where more than one candidate offer their candidature, preference should be given to such candidate who is below the poverty line. In the instant case, the Rule has been adequately applied. The circumstances under which the appointment was granted to the other lady namely Pratima Mahto appears to have been adequately explained and I find no discrimination in the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature in the light of the fact that besides her, two other candidates who are below the poverty line had also submitted their application for appointment and the selection was accordingly made in favour of one of the candidates who was given preference as she was admittedly below the poverty line. I do not find any merit in this application, accordingly this writ application is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.