JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 14.02.2011 passed in Misc. Petition No. 10/08-09, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika for Barmasia (Pandit Tola) Centre was declared invalid and accordingly her appointment was cancelled. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was selected as Aganbari Sevika for Barmasia (Pandit Tola) Centre in the Aam Sabha held on 24.11.2006 and she was appointed as Aganbari Sevika for that Centre. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda cancelled the selection of Aganbari Sevika and Sahayika of the entire district and accordingly the appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner-the respondent no. 4 deputed President and members for selection of Aaganbari Sevika and Sahayika for different Aaganbari Centres. It has been submitted that on 23.05.2007 Aam Sabha was held for the selection of Sevika/Sahayika for the Barmasia (Pandit Tola) Centre, where name of respondent no. 9 was recommended for selection for Sevika before respondent no. 4 and 7, but, it was not accepted by respondent no. 7 on the ground that the respondent no. 9 belongs to government servant family, hence, the petitioner was appointed as Sevika for that Centre and she is working since 06.06.2007. Being aggrieved by the appointment of petitioner, the respondent no. 9 approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 3269 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner (respondent no. 9 herein) to file fresh representation before Deputy Commissioner, who shall pass reasoned order. Accordingly, respondent no. 9 filed Misc. Petition No. 10/08-09 before respondent No. 4, who after hearing the parties, vide order dated 14.02.2011 declared the appointment of the petitioner invalid and accordingly appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, on the ground that on the date of Aam Sabha, the respondent no. 9 was having higher qualification than that of petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 without following the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 for appointment of Aaganbari Sevika, wherein at paragraph 7(Ga), it is stated that Sevika/Sahayika should be amongst beneficiary and in paragraph 4 of the said guideline, it is further stated that persons belonging to below poverty lines comes under the zone of beneficiary. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 without following the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 for appointment of Aaganbari Sevika, wherein at paragraph 7(Ga), it is stated that Sevika/Sahayika should be amongst beneficiary and in paragraph 4 of the said guideline, it is further stated that persons belonging to below poverty lines comes under the zone of beneficiary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that petitioner comes under the definition of beneficiary as she belongs to ‘Below Poverty Line’ Category whereas the respondent no. 9 does not come under the definition of beneficiary, hence, respondent no. 9 does not have mandatory eligibility criteria for appointment for Aaganbari Sevika, as is evident from BPL Ration Card. 4. Referring to the supplementary affidavits, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 9 is not resident of Barmasia-Pandit Tola Centre. However, with oblique motive this fact was not brought on record by the Panchayat Sevak in the resolution of Aam Sabha. It has further been submitted that the husband of respondent no. 9 is LIC agent and her father-in-law is a retired health inspector. It has further been submitted petitioner’s result for intermediate was declared on 31.05.2007, but the same was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents-State contoverting the averments made in the writ application. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that in the Aam Sabha held on 24.11.2006, the petitioner was selected for appointment for Aaganbari Sevika, however, at that time, she was only matriculate and certificate of Intermediate was not produced before Aam Sabha, but it is an admitted fact that her name finds place in ‘Below Poverty Line’ category. However, since the government circulars were not followed in making appointment of Aanganbari Sevika, a District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Godda was formed, who cancelled such appointment. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner did not produce the Intermediate Certificate in Aam Sabha, hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda did not consider this certificate while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that the residential certificate produced by respondent no. 9, which is being issued by Circle Officer, is genuine and it shows that the respondent no. 9 is a resident of village Barmasia, where the Aaganbari Centre is situated. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the residential certificate produced by respondent no. 9, which is being issued by Circle Officer, is genuine and it shows that the respondent no. 9 is a resident of village Barmasia, where the Aaganbari Centre is situated. 6. Canvassing his argument, on the basis of reply dated 05.01.2015, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 9 submitted that respondent no. 9 is resident of village Barmasia and she has no other source of income as her husband is landless, as such she comes under the category of beneficiary of Aangabari Centre in question, which facts get fortified from Annexure A and A/1, the certificates issued by the Circle Officer. Learned counsel for respondent no. 9 further submitted that on the date when Aam Sabha was held, the respondent no. 9 was Intermediate, which is clear from the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Godda whereas the present petitioner was only matriculate. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 further placed on record, the genealogical table, showing therein that respondent no. 9 and the petitioner belong to same ancestor having same and similar family caste and status. Learned counsel for respondent no. 9 further submitted that in the light of above facts, the respondent no. 9 was selected as Sevika in Aam sabha dated 23.05.2007, but was not given appointment letter in presence of villagers, however, in the evening the S.D.O, Godda cancelled the selection of respondent no. 9 forcefully and selected the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika. This fact was brought by the villagers of Barmasia before Deputy Commissioner, Godda by filing an application, Annexure C to the reply, however, when no heed was paid to the said application, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 3269 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2008 with a direction to look into the matter and pass appropriate order. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order. 7. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i) From perusal of Annexure 2, the minutes of Aam Sabha dated 23.05.2007, it is clear that an Aam Sabha was held on 23.05.2007, in which, initially name of respondent no. 9 was recommended for appointment on the post of Sevika as she was possessing higher qualification than other candidates i.e. the present petitioner. However, lateron, on the same day, the S.D.O., rejected the application of respondent no. 9 on the ground that father-in-law of respondent no. 9 was a government servant. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 9 approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 3269 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner (respondent no. 9 herein) to file fresh representation before Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, respondent no. 9 filed Misc. Petition No. 10/08-09 before respondent o. 4, who after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 14.02.2011 declared the appointment of the petitioner invalid and accordingly appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, on the ground that on the date of Aam Sabha, the respondent no. 9 was having higher qualification than that of petitioner. (ii) After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is dispute with regard to qualification of the parties and further they fall under the beneficiary or not. Undoubtedly, on the date when Aam sabha was held i.e. on 23.05.2007 neither the petitioner possessed Intermediate Certificate nor she had produced the same before Aam Sabha and as per the version of the petitioner herself, her result was declared on 31.05.2007. Hence, there is no shadow of doubt that on the date when Aam Sabha was held respondent no. 9 was possessing higher qualification. Hence, the respondent no. 4-the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that on the date when Aam Sabha was held respondent no. 9 was higher qualification. So far as issue whether respondent no. Hence, there is no shadow of doubt that on the date when Aam Sabha was held respondent no. 9 was possessing higher qualification. Hence, the respondent no. 4-the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that on the date when Aam Sabha was held respondent no. 9 was higher qualification. So far as issue whether respondent no. 9 falls under the category of beneficiary or not, from perusal of Annexure A and A/1 to the reply filed by respondent no. 9, which are the certificates issued by the Circle Officer, it appears that respondent no.9 belongs to the area of Aaganbari Centre in question and her husband is landless person. Further respondent no. 9 has come up with genealogical table showing that both the petitioner and respondent no. 9 having common ancestors. Hence, the only difference between them is their qualification, in which, respondent no. 9 is higher. 8. On the cumulative effect of facts and reasons as well as logical sequitur to the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, I find that no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.