JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner is in appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in W.P.S. No. 427 of 2013 which dismissed his writ petition. The writ petition was preferred initially with a prayer to command the Respondents to approve her appointment as an Aanganwari Sevika on her selection on 1.9.2012 by the Aam Sabha for the centre Molnakitta under Godda Gramin Child Development Project in the district of Godda. However, during the pendency of the writ petition prayer of the petitioner to challenge a letter dated 22.1.2013 for initiation of a fresh selection process for appointment of Aanganwari Sevika by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda, through I.A. No. 548 of 2013 was allowed observing “in the meanwhile, any selection of Anganbari Sewika for the centre in question, shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.” Thereafter, a fresh selection process was concluded in the appointment of one Nisha Devi as Sevika on 8.4.2013. Petitioner's prayer to challenge the said appointment letter dated 8.4.2013 through I.A. No. 3869 of 2013 was allowed later on as well, as would appear from the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge, however did not find any substantial irregularities in the decision by 2 which the proceedings of earlier Aam Sabha was cancelled. At the same time it was also held that the petitioner had been unable to indicate any irregularities in selection of said Nisha Devi. The content of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Respondents were also quoted in the impugned judgment where it was indicated that petitioner is not the resident of Molnakitta rather she is a resident of Mohalla Saketpuri, Godda where her name finds place in the voter list. The name of Nisha Devi was mentioned in the voter list of village Molnakitta Harijan Tola in respect of which she has also filed residential certificate. 3. The Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment inter-alia on the grounds that after the initiation of the process of selection of Sevika earlier through a Public Notice dated 11.8.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, petitioner was selected by the Aam Sabha as well on 1.9.2012 vide provisional appointment letter at Annexure-5 of the same date issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Godda Gramin. However, without issuance of any notice or show cause upon her, by a Public Notice dated 22.1.2013 a fresh exercise of selection of Aanganbari Sevika has been carried out and the centre Molnakitta has been arbitrarily changed to Molnakitta Harijan Tola. Therefore, the subsequent selection and appointment of Nisha Devi for the Centre Molnakitta Harijan Tola without cancellation of the petitioner's appointment is also bad in law. The Appellant further contended that the name of the Aanganbari Centre could not have been arbitrarily changed after an exercise of selection of a Sevika had been carried out for the centre Molnakitta while the Sundarmara Harijan Tola under the said Godda Gramin Child Development Project had also been thrown open for selection of Aanganbari Sevika. It is her further contention that though the prayer to challenge the appointment of Nisha Devi through I.A. No. 3869 of 2013 was allowed by the same impugned judgment but the learned Single Judge failed to issue notice upon the private respondent before deciding the writ petition itself on merits. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and remanded for reconsideration after hearing the parties including the newly appointed Aanganbari Sevika. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant and the State and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is apparent from the pleadings and materials on record in the writ petition that pursuant to the Public Notice, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, petitioner was selected as Aanganbari Sevika for the Centre Molnakitta under Godda Gramin Child Development Project but her appointment was only provisional in nature as would appear from Annexure-5 to the writ petition, provisional appointment letter dated 1.9.2012 bearing memo no. 275 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Godda Gramin. A mere perusal of the said document shows that if the appointment of the Sevika is not approved, the selection would be deemed to have been cancelled as the appointment was purely temporary in nature. From perusal of the document at Annexure-1 to I.A. No. 548 of 2013, which was allowed on 19.2.2013, it would appear that the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda had conveyed to the Child Development Project Officer, Godda, Gramin vide letter dated 17.1.2013 bearing memo no. 144 that the selection of the Sevika through letter dated 1.9.2012 by the Aam Sabha had been cancelled. 144 that the selection of the Sevika through letter dated 1.9.2012 by the Aam Sabha had been cancelled. It also indicated that the Aanganbari Centre, Molnakitta has been accorded approval as Molnakitta, Harijan Tola by the Deputy Commissioner which comprised children of members of Scheduled Caste being 35 in number and that of the Backward Communities being 5 in number as the beneficiaries and the centre would run as Molnakitta Harijan Tola. The Child Development Project Officer, Godda Gramin was also directed to conduct a fresh Aam Sabha for selection of a Sevika for the centre Molnakitta Harijan Tola for which a Public Notice dated 22.1.2013 was also issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. It therefore, appears that while the petitioner had made a challenge to the cancellation of her selection made through Aam Sabha on 1.9.2012 in the said I.A. No. 548 of 2013, but learned Single Judge while allowing the prayer made in the said I.A. had not stayed the fresh selection process but only made an observation that any selection of Aanganbari Sevika for the centre in question would be subject to the result of the writ petition. From the terms of the provisional appointment letter read with the letter dated 17.1.2013 of the Child Development Project Officer, Godda, it is apparent that the selection of the petitioner for the Centre Molnakitta was never approved finally by the Competent authority and as such it was deemed to have been cancelled in terms of the conditions contained in the provisional appointment letter itself. The petitioner-Appellant therefore cannot claim any legal right to be appointed as a Sevika on the basis of such provisional selection. 5. The stand of the Respondents, as brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit has been quoted in the impugned judgment as well. It appears therefrom that the name of the petitioner was found in the voter list of Saketpuri while that of Nisha Devi was found in the voter list of village Molnakitta, Harijan Tola. The respondents have also in their supplementary counter affidavit filed on 18.7.2013 in the writ petition categorically indicated that the Aanganbari Centres are not constituted on the basis of revenue villages, but they have been formed strictly on the basis of guidelines of State Government keeping in view the poverty and backwardness of the weaker sections of society, who reside under the centres command area. In the selection of Aanganbari Centres, the population of members of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and extremely Backward people are always kept in mind. They have also indicated that Aanganbari Centres are formed over a population of 1000 people of weaker sections and there can be more than one Aanganbari Centre in the revenue village. It is therefore, contended that petitioner's appointment was cancelled and a fresh selection process has been conducted leading to the appointment of Nisha Devi, who belong to the Centre Molnakitta Harijan Tola, which comprises majority of persons belonging to the 'Mushar' and 'Paswan' Caste and rest belong to the Other Backward Category. 6. Learned Single Judge, therefore appears to have come to the conclusion that there was no irregularities in the cancellation of the proceedings of the earlier Aam Sabha nor were any irregularities in the selection of said Nisha Devi. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge upon consideration of the aforesaid attendant materials on record do not appear to suffer from any error which require interference of this Court in appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed.