1. Vide advertisement notice dated 21.7.2010, applications were invited from eligible female candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Workers under Expan sion Programme of Anganwadi Centres Phase III which include Anganwadi Cen tre, Zamanpora Gushi of Village Gushi. The petitioner had also applied for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker in said Anganwadi Centre. 2. The tentative select list of various Anganwadi Workers for various An ganwadi Centres has been issued, however, as against Anganwadi Centre, Zamanpora Gushi it is recorded as "selection with-held". Petitioner noticing the sameposition filed writ petition (SWP) No. 116/2011 alongwith CMP No. 150/2011 wherein only notices were issued but during pendency of writ petition, petitioner came to know that formal order of engagement vis-a-vis said Anganwadi Centre has been issued in favour of respondent No. 6 (Naheeda Anjum). For seeking quashment of the said engagement order dated 01.03.2011, instant writ petition has been filed. 3. In the reply as filed by respondents No. 1 to 5, it has been stated that the petitioner is not resident of hamlet Zamanpora Gushi, so was not eligible to be engaged in the said Anganwadi Centre. In addition, merit position of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 has been tabulated which reads as under:- Candidate Matric (Marks & %) Academic Merit Viva Voce Award Total merits points. Naheeda Anjum W/O M. Mubashir Akhoon 430/800 53.75% 53.75x75/100 =45.69 10 55.69 Naseema Begum W/O Nazir Ahmad Akhoon 437/800 54.63% 54.63x75/100 =46.43 09 55.43 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is resident of Zamanpora Gushi, it is wrongly projected that she is not resident of the hamlet, if she was not a resident of hamlet, why her application was entertained and why she was subjected to interview. 5. This contention is not required to be answered because it loses significance in view of the petitioner being inferior in merit to the respondent No. 6. 6. When confronted with the same, learned counsel would project that the respondent No. 6 has been awarded 10 out of 10 marks, same has been done with a design to favour respondent No. 6 because percentage of marks at matrie level of respondent No. 6 is 45.69 whereas that of the petitioner is 46.43.
6. When confronted with the same, learned counsel would project that the respondent No. 6 has been awarded 10 out of 10 marks, same has been done with a design to favour respondent No. 6 because percentage of marks at matrie level of respondent No. 6 is 45.69 whereas that of the petitioner is 46.43. By awarding 10 marks in the interview to the respondent No. 6 and 09 marks to the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 got 55.69% as against the petitioner who has got 55.43% marks. 7. Awarding of marks for interview is within the domain of the concerned authority who has conducted the interview. Based on performance of candidates, marks are awarded. Petitioner has also been awarded 09 out of 10 marks. It is true that awarding of 10 marks to the respondent No. 6 has made the difference but awarding of marks in interview is not interferable unless some mala fide, on the part of interviewing authority, is pleaded and substantial base is laid for the same. Perusal of the memo of writ petition would reveal that it is nowhere projected that any particular person for any particular cause favoured the respondent No. 6. Levelling of charges of mala fides is a routine affair for unsuccessful candidates to console themselves, however, same cannot be a rule, exception can be there pro vided solid foundation is available for the same. 8. It appears that the petitioner is aggrieved because she possess higher merit in academic qualification as against respondent No. 6 but difference in academic merit of two candidates is not beyond proportion. At matric level, petitioner has 54.63% marks whereas respondent No. 6 has 53.75%.On pro-ra ta basis, the academic merit of petitioner is worked out at 46.43% whereas of respondent No. 6 at 45.69% and after adding marks obtained in viva voce, the position, as emerge, is quoted above. The selection and consequent order of engagement dated 01.03.2011 favour ing respondent No. 6 is perfectly in accordance with law and same does not call for any interference. The petitioner has been ill advised to file the instant petition. 9. Petition, for the stated reasons, being without merit is dismissed along with connected CMP.