Order : Though respondent no. 7 has entered appearance through learned counsel Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, however, Mr. Jha has submitted that his client, respondent no. 7 has taken away the brief and obtained no objection on 20.06.2013. It appears that private respondent has not entered appearance through any other counsel thereafter nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. Therefore, the case is being heard and decided after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. It is evident from Annexure-2, proceeding of the Aam Sabha held on 21.01.2013 for the selection of Aaganbari Sevika for the centre Bhangiya Pahari, Mohanpur Block, District-Deoghar pursuant to notice to hold Aam Sabha dated 02.01.2013, Annexure-1 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar, respondent no. 6 that Aam Sabha was held in the presence of the respondent no. 6 as its Chairman and other representatives as required under the circular dated 02.06.2006 bearing memo no. 585, Annexure-6 of the Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department i.e. Female Supervisor, Mukhiya, Headmaster, member of panchayat samiti, ANM, Up Mukhiya along with 105 villagers, which considered the rival claim of the petitioner and the private respondent. Both of them belong to the Scheduled Caste category. Aam Sabha recommended the selection of the petitioner as she was having higher qualification of Intermediate with 1st Division while private respondent had qualification of matric pass. It also considered that private respondent was suffering from low vision in both eyes while the petitioner was suffering from physical disability in her left hand. It recommended the petitioner for selection unanimously whereafter the provisional selection letter was also issued in her favour by the respondent no. 6 dated 21.01.2013 itself (Annexure-3). It appears that on complaint made by the private respondent, the respondent no. 4, Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar asked both the petitioner and the private respondent to appear through letter no. 259 dated 25.04.2013 addressed to the respondent no. 6, Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar. Thereafter he recommended the selection of the private respondent as Sevika of the said centre vide letter no. 322 dated 01.06.2013, Annexure-5 impugned in the present writ petition. 3. 259 dated 25.04.2013 addressed to the respondent no. 6, Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar. Thereafter he recommended the selection of the private respondent as Sevika of the said centre vide letter no. 322 dated 01.06.2013, Annexure-5 impugned in the present writ petition. 3. In the aforesaid background facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the circular dated 02.06.2006, Annexure-6 specifically Clause-7(Ka), Clause -11(Ga) and Clause-14 in support of his submission that petitioner's selection in the Scheduled Caste category on having higher qualification of Intermediate was fully justified. No relaxation was required in educational qualification amongst participating candidates by the Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Development Commissioner as a suitable candidate having higher qualification i.e. petitioner was already there. Deputy Development Commissioner, respondent no. 4 also never found any reason to remand the matter to Aam Sabha for fresh selection as the selection of the petitioner was not suffering from any irregularity or lack of qualification. However, without any reason he has refused to approve the selection of the petitioner while recommending appointment of the private respondent. In such circumstances, a valuable right of being appointed has been taken away from the petitioner without any valid reason. 4. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the contents of the counter affidavit specifically para-8, which refers to the complaint of the private respondent Baby Kumari regarding disability certificate produced by the petitioner, thereafter the two candidates had been called in the office of the respondent no. 3 and a decision has been taken to select the respondent no. 7. Apart from such averment made, there are no other ground in the counter affidavit to negate the recommendation of the selection made in favour of the petitioner by the Aam Sabha. 5. Having considered the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable ground on facts and in law to disregard the selection of the petitioner by the Aam Sabha on the part of the respondent no. 4, Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar. 5. Having considered the aforesaid factual matrix and the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable ground on facts and in law to disregard the selection of the petitioner by the Aam Sabha on the part of the respondent no. 4, Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar. The impugned order dated 01.06.2013, Annexure-5 does not contain any reason and has simplicitor recommended the private respondent for appointment as Sevika of the said centre though she was found to be suffering from low vision in both eyes and having qualification of matriculation only compared to the petitioner who is intermediate in Arts with 1st Division, both belonging to the Scheduled Caste Category. Aam Sabha was well attended by several villagers of the beneficiary population and also official representative and there are no suggestion that it suffered from any irregularity. In such circumstances, impugned order dated 01.06.2013, Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is quashed. 6. The respondent no. 4, Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar shall take a fresh decision in the matter of approval of appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove.