ORDER : The present petitioner had participated in the process initiated by the State Authority for engaging Anganwadi workers in Anganwadi Centres for various places including Mashauli Gram Panchayet, Kumarghat but finally could not succeed in getting appointment for the reason that she secured 7 marks in the head of General Knowledge in General category and the candidate who was finally selected is a member of OBC category and secured 9 marks out of 10. According to the petitioner, allocation of marks which has been assigned in the head of General Knowledge by the Committee, have no rational basis behind it and the very selection and appointment of the respondent, Smt. Paramita Sinha, is an abuse of discretion and deserves to be set aside. But at the same time it can be noticed from interview sheet (Annexure-6) that in all 26 candidates had participated in selection process. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the selection was initiated by the respondents for the post of Anganwadi worker for various places including Mashauli. A broad guidelines have been published by the Govt. of Tripura, Education (Social Welfare & Social Education) Department, Agartala, Tripura, dt. 1st October, 2007 which has to be kept in view by the committee in holding the process of selection and constituted a committee to evaluate the overall suitability of the candidates as indicated in the memorandum dt. 30th December, 2015. 3. For place, Mashauli the interview was held on 5th January, 2016 and in all 26 candidates had participated and the Committee awarded marks for General Knowledge out of 10 to the candidates. The petitioner also appeared before the same very Committee and secured 7 marks and at the same time the respondent No.5 Smt. Paramita Sinha secured 9 marks and even looking to the interview sheet of 5th January, 2016, two candidates have secured better marks than the petitioner i.e. 8 and 9 respectively and this fact is clear that the petitioner is not going march over other better candidates who secured more marks than the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers in place Mashauli. 4. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that as per the memorandum dt. 30th December, 2015 the Chairman of the Interview board was the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Kumarghat R.D. Block but he had not participated in the Interview Board. 4. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that as per the memorandum dt. 30th December, 2015 the Chairman of the Interview board was the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Kumarghat R.D. Block but he had not participated in the Interview Board. The very constitution of the board, according to him, was defective and the recommendation made by the board being not according to the memorandum dt. 30th December, 2015 was invalid and could not have been acted upon. At the same time, further submission of the counsel is that marks assigned by the interview board to the various candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein, there is no basis for assessment of the candidates in awarding the marks of General Knowledge and that apart the procedure followed by the respondents being not in accordance with the norms laid down by the respondents the appointment of the respondent No.5 is illegal and the same be quashed and set aside. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it is specifically averred that on the date when the meeting of interview board was held i.e. on 5th January, 2016, the Chairman of the interview board was absent because of unavoidable circumstances and he has given consent to conduct the interview and no quorum being prescribed under the memorandum dt. 30th December, 2015 and if the Chairman had not participated in the interview that will not hold the recommendation invalid under the law. 6. It is further averred by the respondents that the respondent No.5 had a good job experience at the office of the C.D.P.O. as a member of OBC and her past experience has also been taken care of by the Committee while awarding 9 marks for General Knowledge and that apart the respondent No.5 was earlier serving in the Office of the C.D.P.O., Kumarghat and on her appointment as Anganwadi worker she tendered her resignation on 28th January, 2016 which was accepted by the C.D.P.O., Kumarghat on 1st February, 2016 and after being relieved she joined as Anganwadi worker at Mashauli on 3rd February 2016 and since then the respondent No.5 is discharging her duties as Anganwadi worker. 7. 7. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is of no substance for the reason that these are ex-cadre posts to be filled on temporary basis for fixed term, entail no vested right, even the memorandum dt.30.12.2015 which has been published by the respondents and the procedure prescribed to be followed are the administrative instructions any minor deviation by the authorities/board if any as alleged by the petitioner even if taken at the face value may not non-suit the final selections. 8. At the same time, the present petitioner also participated and appeared before the interview board constituted to hold the selection of candidate on 5th January, 2016 and she has participated without any protest/demur and the reason for coming to this court is that as she has not been finally selected took the other way to question the process. 9. That apart, the recommendations made by the board has been acted upon by the authorities in engaging the respondent No.5 as Anganwadi worker who joined on 1st February, 2016 and since then she is continuously discharging her duties. 10. As already observed these are the posts where engagement is made on temporary basis for a fixed term conferring no right to the incumbent and it is not the case of the petitioner that there is a violation of any statutory rules, if any framed by the authorities in making engagement of Anganwadi worker and minor deviation from the scheme introduced by the respondents will not nonsuit the candidate who has been finally selected and working for last 2 and half years. 11. After having heard the counsel of the petitioner and taking note of the materials on record, I find no substance in the petition and in consequence whereof, the petition stands dismissed.