Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— Heard Sri Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's appointment as Motivator (Prerak) has been annulled on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to occupy the post. There are two posts for village Nickrojpur. According to the reservation applicable, the first post ought to have been offered to the other backward category. The merit list was prepared but it appears according to the finding recorded in the impugned order that for the second post only the application of the petitioner was entertained and she was appointed. Aggrieved, a complaint was filed which has now been entertained and the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner claims selection and appointment against the second post which according to the undisputed position has to be offered to a female candidate. She contends that the complaint made was for a different post in another school but the District Magistrate has passed an order on the selections of the petitioner which has no concern with the facts of the complaint made by respondent no. 6. The contention is that the decision is misdirected on a wrong consideration of facts. Having perused the impugned order, it appears that while examining the complaint on a direction issued by this Court, the District Magistrate discovered that the selection of the petitioner was against the merit list prepared and after hearing the petitioner, held that the female candidate who was higher in qualification than the petitioner deserved to be appointed. The advertisement prescribed that the first post has to be offered to the category of reservation. It is undisputed that the Gram Pradhan of the village was of the category of reservation namely Other Backward Category. Accordingly, respondent no. 7 was appointed against the said post. The second post had necessarily to be offered to a female candidate as one post is reserved for females. It was found on facts that the list of female candidates contained the name of the petitioner who was lesser qualified as against those who were graduates. Her selection was projected on the strength that she was the lone applicant whereas the District Magistrate found that there were seven female applicants and six male applicants in all. It was found on facts that the list of female candidates contained the name of the petitioner who was lesser qualified as against those who were graduates. Her selection was projected on the strength that she was the lone applicant whereas the District Magistrate found that there were seven female applicants and six male applicants in all. The proposal of the petitioner according to the impugned order was manipulated with the help of the Headmaster Bhadeshwar Pandey, that appears to be a coalition of social engineering as the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste. This artful handling by skilfully projecting a single application is sought to be countered by the learned counsel that the order proceeds on a different material than the complaint. The facts that were gathered during hearing are on record and have not been resisted on any material to the contrary. Annexure-3 to the writ petition relied on by the petitioner is the same list as discussed in the order with a spelling mistake. The alleged proposal dated 18.6.2010 through which the petitioner's name is projected is not backed up by any different proposal, nor any thing has been brought on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner. The sending of a single name of the petitioner has been rightly doubted by the District Magistrate and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The petitioner even otherwise is lower in merit as she is only intermediate and the candidate approved is a graduate. The question of giving any preference to any weaker section does not arise as the village is of the reserved category against which an O.B.C. candidate has already been appointed and the present post is of the open category. I am therefore not inclined to treat the order as perverse inasmuch as, relevant material has been taken into consideration and as such there is no cause for interference or exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, after having perused the records, the District Magistrate has reversed the appointment of the petitioner and has directed the authorities to comply with the directions in accordance with the observation made therein after considering the comparative merit of the 13 candidates who had applied. There is no error in the same. The writ petition is dismissed. _____________