JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached before this Court with a prayer to appoint her as Anganbari Sevika after quashing appointment of respondent no. 4. 3. Mr. Jai Shanker Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that respondent no. 4 has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika on the basis of she having 59% marks in B.A. whereas she had obtained only 47.63% marks in B.A.. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner had obtained 51% marks in Graduation and as such, she should have been appointed as Anganbari Sevika as the same were brought on record before the village Aam Sabha. Learned counsel further submits that selection of the respondent no. 4 was based on having higher educational qualification which is very clear from Prastav Sankhya 3 at Page-19 of the Supplementary Counter filed by the respondents. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Upon direction of this Court, a supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the State submits that appointment has been made as per rules. Respondent no. 4 belongs to a particular Tola where Anganbari Center exists and as such, as per rule she has been given preference. 5. Mr. Jitendra Shanker Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 argues that for appointment of Anganbari Sevika, in addition to the qualification and marks obtained by a particular candidate in Graduation, 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. 4 has been appointed on the ground that she belongs to the particular Tola where the Anganbari Centre exists whereas petitioner belongs to some other place/locality/Tola of the same village. For smooth functioning of the Center, Government has given additional weightage to the person of the locality/Tola, 6. Having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration on the ground that documents annexed by the State itself goes to show that wrong consideration has been done by the Village Level Committee. The respondent no. 4 has been appointed on the ground that she is having higher education whereas qualification of respondent no. 4 and petitioner are same i.e. Graduation. The respondent no. 4 has been appointed on the ground that she is having higher education whereas qualification of respondent no. 4 and petitioner are same i.e. Graduation. Though it is case of the petitioner that she has obtained more marks than the respondent no. 4, the other criteria has also to be taken into consideration before offering appointment letter to the candidate. 7. In the circumstances, appointment of respondent no. 4 in view of report of the Village Level Committee dated 11.08.2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Palamau is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh and issue fresh appointment letter to suitable candidate after hearing both the parties i.e. respondent no. 4 as well as the petitioner and after examining the requisite qualification and other required criteria as per terms and conditions laid down for appointment of Anganbari Sevika. The entire exercise has to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.