ORDER : 1. Heard, Mr. Mukesh Kant, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ application questioning the legal sustainability of the order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Chapra rejecting the claim for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner in view of her higher qualification while considering her case for selection for appointment to the Post of Lady Supervisors. 3. The petitioner is an Anganwari Sewika and she has applied for her selection as against 25 per cent posts earmarked for appointment of Lady Supervisors. The select list was prepared and the petitioner was not allowed the bonus marks as provided in the guidelines with regard to the higher qualification resulting in her lower placement in the list. The matter ultimately came up before this Court when the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1553 of 2012. This Court after hearing the parties disposed of the said writ application by order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure-7) and while remitting the matter back to the Respondent-Divisional Commissioner for consideration, this Court has observed as follows : “Without going into the controversy whether the petitioner pursued higher qualification on sanctioned leave or without permission, the Court finds it difficult to accept the stand of the respondents that the petitioner committed a sin by obtaining higher qualification. An Anganwari Sewika is not a Government Servant and therefore the principles applicable to government servants for pursuing higher educational qualifications in service cannot apply to the petitioner.” 4. However, it transpires that Respondent-Divisional Commissioner by the impugned order in this writ application has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of bonus marks against her higher qualification on the self-same ground that the petitioner did not acquire the higher qualifications after obtaining permission from the authorities in that regard. 5. Mr. Mukesh Kant, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the observations of this Court as mentioned above, the respondent-Commissioner in fact has committed illegality in denying the relief to the petitioner on the self-same ground. It has been canvassed that the fact has not been denied that the petitioner is possessing higher qualifications which makes her entitled to bonus marks but the same has not been granted to her only for the reason that she did not obtain the permission for acquiring higher educational qualification. It has been canvassed that the fact has not been denied that the petitioner is possessing higher qualifications which makes her entitled to bonus marks but the same has not been granted to her only for the reason that she did not obtain the permission for acquiring higher educational qualification. It has been also posited that the petitioner had also filed the application before the concerned authorities before proceeding to appear in the examination for higher qualification and, therefore, the stand of respondents that the petitioner did not obtain permission cannot be sustained in absence of any order or the case on behalf of respondents that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of permission had been rejected. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the controversy has earlier been settled by this Court by making observation while disposing of the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted, however, that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, has been passed after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. After careful consideration of the matter and the submissions on behalf of parties, it is manifest that the petitioner has acquired higher educational qualifications. The bonus marks to which the petitioner is entitled according to the guidelines/rules has been denied only on the ground of want of permission for obtaining the said higher qualifications. But the said controversy no more survives in view of the observation made in the order of this Court in CWJC No. 1553 of 2012 as mentioned earlier. Moreover, the respondents have not specifically denied filing of the petition by the petitioner seeking leave for appearing in the examination and it is no where their case that such leave was ever refused. The intendment behind the guidelines/rules for providing bonus marks to Anganwari Sewikas with higher qualifications has apparently been made for the purpose of appointing more qualified Anganwari Sewikas as Lady Supervisors and the stand of the respondents in rejecting the claim for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner on the ground, which has already been negated by this Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. 8. In result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the respondent-Divisional Commissioner is quashed. 8. In result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the respondent-Divisional Commissioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for award of bonus marks after verifying the fact of her higher qualifications and if the petitioner satisfies the concerned authorities regarding the validity of her educational certificates, she shall be awarded the bonus marks according to the guidelines/rules. 9. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid direction.