JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing part of letter dated 09.09.2009 whereby the name of respondent no. 6 has been recommended for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in place of petitioner. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sewika. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that in pursuance to notice published in daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" dated 14.08.2009 for selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika and Sahayika for Gobarsela Centre, Tangratoli, Lohardaga, the petitioner along with other candidate appeared before the Gram Sabha on 28.08.2009, in which, it is alleged that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Gram Sabha for selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. But, the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga vide letter dated 09.09.2009 instead of recommending the name of petitioner recommended the name of respondent no. 6. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner made representation before the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga but it did not evoke any response, which compelled the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court. 3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, A.C to learned S.C. (L &C) for the respondent-State and Mr. Piyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Gram Sabha is the competent authority to recommend the name of candidate for the selection on the post in question but ignoring the above provision, the respondent no. 4 arbitrarily made appointment of respondent no. 6. It has further been submitted that altogether six candidates took part, in which, the petitioner was declared successful and others were declared unsuccessful by the Village Committee, but that fact has not been taken care of by the respondents and only adopting pick and chose method, arbitrarily appointed respondent no. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Sumati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors reported in, 2009 4 JLJR 626 . 5. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Sumati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors reported in, 2009 4 JLJR 626 . 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that as per circular dated 02.06.2006 issued by Department of Social Welfare, Women & Child Development, in particular 7 (f), the concerned sahayika/sevika must be the resident of the tola where Anganbari Centre is situated and further the sahayika/sevika must belong to the category being the largest among beneficiaries but in the case at hand the petitioner does not fulfill the said provision. Hence, there is no illegality in denial of appointment of petitioner and appointment of respondent no. 6, who is otherwise eligible. 6. Learned counsel appearing for private respondent no. 6 submitted that respondent no. 6 belongs to Scheduled Category, which is major population of that area. Furthermore, after her legitimate appointment she is continuing on the said post with utmost satisfaction of the authority concerned. 7. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that the Angabari Centre in question is pre-dominent by the Scheduled Tribe Population and undoubtedly the petitioner does not belong to that category whereas respondent no. 6 belongs to that category. In this regard, Clause 7 (f) of the circular dated 02.06.2006 of the Department of Social Welfare, Women & Child Development, is specific and says that selection of Sevika should be made amongst the category being largest amongst beneficiaries. Furthermore, the respondent no. 6 is working since after her appointment, hence no interference is called for. 8. 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.