JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 24.08.2009, issued by Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro by which her candidature for Aanganbari Sevika has not been considered although she is more qualified than the candidate appointed for Aanganbari Sevika. 3. The facts in short as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner is resident of Village – Rahargora, P.S. -Chas, District – Bokaro and is a married women and comes within the below poverty line. Petitioner is intermediate whereas respondent no. 7 is matriculate only. Petitioner and five others including respondent no. 7 had appeared in Aam Sabha held for selection of Aanganbari Sevika but her candidature has been denied on the ground that her husband is in government service whereas respondent no. 7 has been selected for the said post which has subsequently been approved by respondent nos. 3 and 4 ignoring the fact that petitioner is more qualified than respondent no. 7. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner fulfills the required criteria for selection on the post of Aanganbari Sevika. Petitioner is Intermediate whereas respondent no. 7 is only Matriculate. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner also comes under the category of below poverty line. Learned counsel further submits that as per rule person having higher education is eligible for the appointment. Learned counsel further submits that when petitioner fulfills all the required criteria, only in order to deprive, her candidature has been rejected on frivolous grounds. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since husband of the petitioner is in government service and therefore, as per rule, she could not have been selected for Aanganbari Sevika and as such, her candidature has rightly been rejected. Learned counsel further submits that in addition to the educational criteria, the other criteria has to be fulfilled for such appointment. Since respondent no. 7 comes under below poverty line and as such, she has been appointed. 6. Mr. N.K. Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. Learned counsel further submits that in addition to the educational criteria, the other criteria has to be fulfilled for such appointment. Since respondent no. 7 comes under below poverty line and as such, she has been appointed. 6. Mr. N.K. Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7 argues that for appointment of Anganbari Sevika, in addition to the qualification and marks obtained by a particular candidate, other things are also to be looked into. Learned counsel fairly submits that as per rule, there are other considerations also and the respondent no. 7 has been appointed on the ground that her income is only Rs.6,000/- whereas income of the petitioner is Rs.42,000/-. 7. Having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Though petitioner's income is Rs.42,000/- whereas the income of respondent no. 7 is merely Rs.6,000/- but both of them comes within the purview of below poverty line. Petitioner is having higher qualification than respondent no.7. 8. In the circumstances, I hereby direct the respondent no. 2 – Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to consider case of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7 taking into consideration that what is the criteria for below poverty line. Selection of a candidate has to be done taking into account the entire consideration for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Sevika. I further direct the respondent no. 2 – Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to pass reasoned order in accordance with law for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Sevika after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7 and after affording ample opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and if petitioner is found suitable for such appointment, she may be offered appointment letter after canceling the appointment letter issued to respondent no. 7. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.