ORDER : Prakash Shrivastava, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to appoint her on the post of Supervisor treating her experience as Anganwadi Worker for five years. 2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that she was appointed vide order dated 15/10/2009 as Mini Anganwadi Karyakarta at Anganwadi Centre, Rangpura Maata Falia. Thereafter by order dated 30/12/2011 she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker and had joined as Anganwadi Worker on 5/1/2012. She had applied for the post of Supervisor in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26th September, 2014 and in terms of the said advertisement, five years experience on the post of Anganwadi Worker was required. Further case of the petitioner is that she was duly selected in the examination, but at the time of verification of the documents it was wrongly held that the petitioner was not having five years experience as Anganwadi Worker. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the post of Mini Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi Worker is the same, therefore, the petitioner's experience for services rendered as Mini Anganwadi Worker should be counted against the post of Anganwadi worker and since the petitioner is having five years experience on the post of Anganwadi Worker including the earlier experience, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment on the post of Supervisor. 4. Learned counsel for respondents have opposed the writ petition submitting that since the petitioner does not possess the minimum requisite experience of five years and the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Worker are different, therefore, the petitioner's experience on the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker (Sub Anganwadi Worker) cannot be counted as experience on the post of Anganwadi Worker. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly from 15/10/2009 till 4/1/2012 the petitioner has worked on the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker and by order dated 30/12/2011 she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker and since 5/1/2012 she is working as Anganwadi Worker. As per advertisement for recruitment to the post of Supervisor, one of the minimum eligibility condition is to have five years experience on the post of Anganwadi worker. As per advertisement for recruitment to the post of Supervisor, one of the minimum eligibility condition is to have five years experience on the post of Anganwadi worker. If the petitioner's working period on the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker is excluded, then the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum eligibility condition of having five years experience on the post of Anganwadi Worker. 6. The reply filed by the respondents clearly reveals that the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker is different from the post of Anganwadi Worker. In the reply, the nomenclature of Mini Anganwadi Worker has been used interchangeable with Sub Anganwadi Worker. It has been revealed in the reply that the honararium of the Sub Anganwadi Worker is Rs.3250/- whereas the honararium payable to the Anganwadi Worker is Rs.5000/-. The reply of the respondents further reveals that the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Sub Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Worker is also different. For Sub Anganwadi Worker, the minimum qualification is 5th pass whereas for the post of Anganwadi Worker, the minimum qualification is Higher Secondary pass and Anganwadi Worker are posted in the villages having higher population whereas the Sub Anganwadi Worker are posted in the villages of low population. Nothing has been filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was receiving honararium payable to the Anganwadi Worker and the plea which the respondents have raised in the reply has also not been rebutted by the petitioner. In view of this, it cannot be held that the post of Mini (Sub) Anganwadi Worker is equal to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Hence, the petitioner's experience as Mini Anganwadi Worker cannot be counted as against the post of Anganwadi Worker. Since the petitioner does not fulfil the minimum eligibility condition of having five years experience on the post of Anganwadi Worker, therefore, no error has been committed by the respondents in taking the stand that the petitioner is ineligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.