JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The process of appointment of Anganwadi Sevika for village Krushna held as per the proclamation dated 1.8.2016 is under challenge in both these petitions. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the affected candidates that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati is contradictory in its findings as well as reasons. But, it is conceded by Shri Ghuge, learned counsel for one of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4153/2017, that the Government has not issued any clear guidelines for ascertaining the knowledge of language of the aspiring candidates. 6. On going through the G.R. dated 13.8.2014, it is seen that the knowledge of language is an important criterion for selection of Anganwadi Sevika. The G.R. lays down that where an Anganwadi has such children as are acquainted with a particular language and their number is more than 50% of the total number of the children in the Anganwadi, the Anganwadi Sevika having knowledge of the language spoken by the majority of the children of Anganwadi be selected. Based upon this G.R. the proclamation dated 1.8.2016 inviting applications for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika was issued and this proclamation also contained the same clause as the G.R dated 13.8.2014 relating to the knowledge of language. 7. In response to the proclamation dated 1.8.2016, applications were received by the Department and the problem began. While criteria of knowledge of language was important, there were no guidelines available for ascertaining the knowledge of language. The guidance was sought from the superior officer by the Selection Authority and ultimately when the matter reached the table of the Chief Executive Officer, Washim, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order on 25.11.2016 directing that whatever selections were made be cancelled and fresh selections be made after constituting a committee which shall ascertain the knowledge of language by applying some objective criteria. The Chief Executive Officer, Washim also clarified the manner in which the Committee was to be constituted and who would make up the Committee. This order, however, was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, who, as stated earlier, disposed of two appeals filed by both these petitioners by passing conflicting orders. It is these orders which are under challenge in these two petitions. 8. This order, however, was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, who, as stated earlier, disposed of two appeals filed by both these petitioners by passing conflicting orders. It is these orders which are under challenge in these two petitions. 8. When it is not in dispute that there are no guidelines issued by the State Government for ascertaining the knowledge of language and applying meaningfully mandatory criterion of a candidate being well versed in the language spoken by the majority of children of Anganwadi, it was the requirement of principles of fairness and equality, in terms of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India while making appointment to public posts, that some test of knowledge of language was held or some objective way was found out to apply the criterion. In my view, these principles could not have been followed more effectively in this case than by following the method suggested by the Chief Executive Officer, Washim, in the absence of clear cut guidelines of the State of Maharashtra in the matter to ascertain knowledge of language. This aspect, which lies at the core of the dispute and which is intrinsic to administrative law, has not been considered by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and the result is of illegal and arbitrary orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner in the matter. These orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. In the result, I find that both these petitions deserve to be allowed to the extent the challenge made to the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and they are allowed accordingly. 10. The impugned orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Washim on 25.11.2016 in Case No.955/2016 is maintained. 12. It is directed that the selection process be held in terms of the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Washim dated 25.11.2016 and completed within two months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.