JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing appointment made in favour of respondent no. 4 and further for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in pursuance to decision taken by Gram Sabha in its proceeding dated 07.02.2007. 2. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahaika, Aam Sabha was held, in which, the petitioner along with other candidates participated and finally the name of the petitioner was recommended for selection by the Aam Sabha, but the Child Development Project Officer, Nirsa made a self-made ground that since the petitioner is daughter of the village in question she is not entitled to be appointed and made appointment of respondent no. 4 stating that she is daughter-in-law of that village. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is totally erroneous finding arrived at by the C.D.P.O., Nirsa. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is not the daughter of that village rather she is daughter-in-law of that village which finds support from the fact that her husband-Hridaya Narayan Sinha @ Hridaya Narayan Prasad is a resident of Salika Mahavir Sthan and is working as a 4th Grade Mazdoor At Mechanical Bharat Engineering Company and further his name also finds place in the Voter List of that place. Hence, the ground taken by the C.D.P.O, Nirsa is not at all tenable. It has further been submitted that the petitioner also belongs to majority caste of that area i.e. Yadavas and she belongs to that caste as such the Gram sabha had rightly recommended her name. It has further been submitted that being aggrieved by the finding given by C.D.P.O, Nirsa, the petitioner submitted representation before the authorities concerned, but, it did not evoke any response. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that C.D.P.O ignoring the recommendation made by Gram Sabha appointed respondent no. It has further been submitted that being aggrieved by the finding given by C.D.P.O, Nirsa, the petitioner submitted representation before the authorities concerned, but, it did not evoke any response. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that C.D.P.O ignoring the recommendation made by Gram Sabha appointed respondent no. 4, on the totally false and flimsy ground, as such the decision given by C.D.P.O, Nirsa is fit to be quashed and set aside and consequent thereupon, the petitioner being the eligible candidate as recommended by the Gram Sabha is entitled to be appointed on the post in question. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that initially the Selection Committee proposed the name of Smt. Ram Dulari Singh but her name was subsequently rejected on the ground that the she is the daughter of the village and respondent no. 4 was selected stating that she is the daughter-in-law of the said village and she possesses higher qualification. Besides, respondent no. 4 belongs to majority of caste of that area. Referring to supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.12.2013, learned counsel for respondents-State submitted that even the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad made enquiry regarding residential status of the petitioner and as per the report submitted by the officers, it is amply clear that the residential certificate submitted by the petitioner is only “For Educational Purpose” and further from the report submitted by the Karmachari and Circle Officer, by virtue of marriage of the petitioner, she became permanent resident of Gaya District, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Bihar. 5. After giving my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record and on perusal of documents available on record, in particular, minutes of meeting of Aam Sabha dated 07.02.2007, it appears that at paragraph 5 of the minutes, it has been stated that Aam Sabha initially recommended the name of Ram Dulari Sinha, the present petitioner, but the Selection Committee rejected her name on the ground that she is daughter of that village and further candidates having higher qualification is present in the meeting. In paragraph 6 of the said minutes, it is further averred that Selection Committee suggested the name of Rita Sharma, respondent no. 4 herein, on the ground that she is daughter-in-law of that village, she possesses higher qualification of B.A. (Hons) and she belongs to majority caste, upon which the Aam Sabha gave its consent. 6. In paragraph 6 of the said minutes, it is further averred that Selection Committee suggested the name of Rita Sharma, respondent no. 4 herein, on the ground that she is daughter-in-law of that village, she possesses higher qualification of B.A. (Hons) and she belongs to majority caste, upon which the Aam Sabha gave its consent. 6. From the pleadings available on record and as per the report submitted by the Circle Officer and enquiry made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, it appears that the petitioner was daughter of that village, who was married to a person, who is a permanent resident of Gaya (Bihar). The other ground for rejection of recommendation of name of the petitioner was that other candidates have higher qualification, which from the material available on record appears to be correct as respondent no. 4 possessed the degree of B.A. (Hons), whereas the petitioner was Matriculate only. Hence, no illegality or perversity appears to have been committed by the respondents in making appointment of respondent no. 4. 7. As a logical sequitur to the facts, reasons and discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.