JUDGMENT V.K. Ahujna, J. By this L.P.A., the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Arankothi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The only challenge laid by the appellant is to the observations made by the learned Single Judge holding that in the marks awarded to the appellant, she had been awarded 1.16 marks for experience, which were wrongly granted in view of the rules relevant for the grant of marks. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the marks for the different categories, which are given as under:- “B) Maximum 2 marks for experience tobe given as under:- One mark for candidates havingexperience as Anganwari Helper/Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for one year or Shishu Palak of ECCE centre for 10 months. Or Two marks for candidates havingexperience as Anganwari Helper/ Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for two ormore years.” 4. The learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant was granted 1.16 marks wrongly for the experience, though she could have been awarded only one mark and accordingly by recalculating the sum total of the marks awarded under different categories, it was held that respondent No. 1 could have been selected since she had obtained a total of 10.11 marks as against the appellant who had obtained only 9.98 marks. The other three candidates were much below the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 5. We have to consider the interpretation given to the above rules by the learned Single Judge. The marks awarded under the first category i.e. one mark is for candidates having experience as Anganwari Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for one year or Shishu Palak of ECCE centre for 10 months. The marks awarded under the second category i.e. two marks for candidates having experience as Anganwari Helper/Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for two or more years. The marks to be awarded were not from 1-2 and the petitioner could fall either under category No. 1 and was entitled to one mark or she could be considered under category No. 2, for which two marks were to be awarded. There is no third category depending upon the actual experience of the appellant of nearly 14 months vide which the marks were awarded by the Selection Committee. There is no third category depending upon the actual experience of the appellant of nearly 14 months vide which the marks were awarded by the Selection Committee. At the cost of repetition, the petitioner can fall under category No.1 or 2 and could not have been given fraction of the marks depending upon the actual number of months for her experience. The interpretation to the rules has been given correctly by the learned Single Judge and we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1. 6. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. There is no order as to costs.