ORDER : 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for setting aside the selection of the respondent no. 7 by the Aamsabha convened on 27.08.2009 for the post of Anganbari Sevika in the newly created Anganbari Centre, Achala-2, Dumaria Tola in the district of Garhwa and further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sevika, since she fulfills all necessary requirements like educational qualification, Caste and Residential certificate. 2. The facts in brief, are that being the resident, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika in the Anganbari Centre, Achala-2, Dumaria Tola having the qualification of B.A. After receipt of the applications, an Aamsabha was held on 27.08.2009 for selection of Sevika and Sahayika. In the said Aamsabha, the respondent no. 7 was chosen over the petitioner. Being dejected, the petitioner vide objection to the selection of the respondent no. 7, on two grounds, firstly, there was lack of quoram in the Aamsabha and secondly, the certificate obtained by the respondent no. 7 has been obtained by fraud from Madarsa Islamia, Ranchi in the year 2009. The petitioner also made a complaint to the respondents by way of representation, praying for setting aside the selection of the Aamsabha and for initiation of fresh process for selection. It has further been averred that in pursuance to the complaint, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report dated 14.10.2009, endorsing therein, that there was lack of quoram and for fresh selection. It has further been averred that inspite of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the selection of the respondent no. 7 was confirmed on the post of Sevika and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Finally, the petitioner also submitted representations to the respondent nos. 3 to 6, which fell on the deaf ears. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in selecting the respondent no. 7 on the post of Anganbari Sevika on the face of the enquiry report, conducted by an I.A.S. Officer, is neither justified nor legally tenable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in selecting the respondent no. 7 on the post of Anganbari Sevika on the face of the enquiry report, conducted by an I.A.S. Officer, is neither justified nor legally tenable. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents ought to have verified the certificates produced by the respondent no. 7 before confirming the selection. Learned counsel has further referred to Annexure-8 of the reply to the counter affidavit, wherein, the Enquiry has been conducted by one Ashok Kumar Sharma, more particularly, he has referred to paragraph 4 of the said report, which has been submitted on 17.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the quoram was not complete, as would be evident from the enquiry conducted by the S.D.O., Garhwa, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is in clear breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Repudiating the contentions made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 6, contending, therein, that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika, in newly created Anganbari centre, Achala-2, Dumaria Tola in the District of Garhwa has been done in pursuance to the Aamsabha, dated 27.07.2009, where only two female members came forward and filed their applications for selection of Sevika. On perusal of the educational qualification certificates, the respondent no. 7 was found more qualified and eligible, as respondent no. 7 has passed B.A. (Urdu) examination in the 1st Division and the petitioner has passed the B.A. examination in 2nd Division, hence the Aam Sabha unanimously selected the respondent no.7 for the post of Anganbari Sevika and the selection to the said post was not in any manner arbitrary. It has further been averred that the petitioner’s claim that the quorum was not complete, is not true, because out of total 81 members, there were 38 female members were present and all of them have signed in the proceeding of the Aam Sabha. So far as the allegation of the petitioner regarding certificate of B.A., produced by the Respondent No. 7 has been obtained by fraud, is concerned, the respondent no. So far as the allegation of the petitioner regarding certificate of B.A., produced by the Respondent No. 7 has been obtained by fraud, is concerned, the respondent no. 7 has submitted her degree certificate from Madarsa Islamiyan for the year 2009 and on proper verification vide letter dated 19.09.2010, the Respondent no. 7 was directed to work as Sevika of the Anganbari Centre, Achala-2, Dumaria Tola. That apart, no order was ever been given by the Deputy Commissioner or District Development Commissioner for re-conducting the Aam Sabha. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has vociferously submitted that there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety on the part of the respondents in conducting the selection and convening the Aam Sabha for selecting the respondent no. 7 since the respondent no. 7 possessed better qualification compared to the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 7 controverting the allegations and averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 7, it has been submitted that none of the certificates produced by the Respondent no. 7 is false or fabricated and basing on the certificates produced by the petitioner and respondent no. 7, since the petitioner was found to have passed her B.A. Examination in the Second Division, whereas, Respondent No. 7 was found to have passed Alim Honours in Urdu with First division, therefore, the Aam Sabha unanimously selected respondent No. 7 for the post of sevika and rightly, they have done so. The xerox copy of the Educational qualification of the Respondent No. 7 has been annexed to the counter affidavit, as Annexure-A series. It has further been submitted that while respondent no. 7 was pursuing her graduation from Madarasa she was told that the degree of such Madarasa is not recognized and being apprehensive, she took admission in Namdhari College and she was having the opportunity to take the Part-I examination in the year 2009. By then, respondent no. 7 has already completed her course and passed Alim Honours from Madarasa but, when the doubt in respect of the recognition of Madarsa entertained by respondent no. 7 was done away with, she left pursuing the B.A. course from SSJS Namdhari College, Garhwa, therefore, it cannot be said that the degree issued to her was forged or fabricated. 7. 7 has already completed her course and passed Alim Honours from Madarasa but, when the doubt in respect of the recognition of Madarsa entertained by respondent no. 7 was done away with, she left pursuing the B.A. course from SSJS Namdhari College, Garhwa, therefore, it cannot be said that the degree issued to her was forged or fabricated. 7. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to tinker to the selection of the respondent no. 7 due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) Admittedly, the selection of the respondent no. 7 has been done by the Aam Sabha after taking into account various relevant education qualification and other testimonials. The certificate produced by the respondent no. 7 has been duly verified and after verification, it was found that she has secured 1st Division, whereas, the petitioner has secured 2nd Division and i.e. the basis of consideration for selection of respondent no. 7 by the Aam Sabha. (ii) It is the settled position of law that the decision of the Aam Sabha is paramount, unless the decision is tainted with mala fide or actuated by arbitrariness. In the decision reported in 2010 (4) JCR 94 (Jhr) : 2009 (4) JLJR 626 , passed in L.P.A. No. 204 of 2009 (Sumati Devi vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold that it is majority of votes of members of Aam Sabha, which is the final authority to decide upon the selection. In the instant case, the allegations, as has been levelled by the petitioner, being supported by the enquiry report, has not been given much credence by the Deputy Commissioner, who could have directed for re-conducting the Aam Sabha, but, no such direction has been made by the respondent no. 3 to conduct fresh Aam Sabha. Another important factor, which cannot be lost sight, is to the effect, that the allegation of petitioner that Aam Sabha lacked quoram, as evident from the enquiry, has not been directly controverted by the respondent-State. 8. In that view of the matter, without setting aside the selection of the respondent no. 3 to conduct fresh Aam Sabha. Another important factor, which cannot be lost sight, is to the effect, that the allegation of petitioner that Aam Sabha lacked quoram, as evident from the enquiry, has not been directly controverted by the respondent-State. 8. In that view of the matter, without setting aside the selection of the respondent no. 7, since he has continued on the said post for nearly a decade, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the writ application, with direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (respondent no. 3) to look into the grievance of the petitioner and vis-à-vis the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Garhwa, if in the fitness of things, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (respondent no. 3) comes to the conclusion that there is a lack of quoram or the selection by the Aam Sabha has been vitiated, the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (respondent no. 3) will be at liberty to take a decision in that regard, by giving opportunity to petitioner and Respondent No. 7 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order.