JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Churru, which appointment took place in the year 1997, on the ground that the candidature of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the respondent-State, despite the fact that she was found to be more meritorious. 2. Though respondent No. 3 stands duly served and is duly represented by the learned counsel, whose name is duly reflected in the cause list, however, none has appeared for the said respondent, therefore, she is proceeded against ex parte. Reply filed by the said respondent is on record and the same has been perused by the Court alongwith the reply filed by the respondent-State as well as the supplementary affidavit subsequently filed by the State. 3. It is not in dispute that in the selection process which was undertaken by the respondent-State for appointing an Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre at Churru, the present petitioner was found to be the more meritorious out of the candidates, who appeared in the interview. Details of the interview stand appended alongwith the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, which are quoted hereinbelow: ?Details of interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker under ICDS Project, Amb Gram Panchayat Churru Anganwadi Centre Churru Sr. No. Name of the candidate D.O.B. Edu Ql. Whether any member of Edu. Exp. GK Total Remarks Family is in Govt./Semi Govt. service 1. 2            3                4                 5                 6                 7          8            9          10 1. Santosh Kumari, w/o Sh. Gian Singh     VPO    12.2.71            10th 373/700 Yes 5.3       8          7          20.3     Experience for working in Shivalik Sewa Mandal Churru but the husband is working as Patwari. 2. Shobha Devi w/o Dharam Pal VPO Churru     13.06.60 10th 447/900 No      4.9       5          9.9       IRDP, No family member in govt. service. Member of ward panch. If selected she will resign as per undertaking. 3. Saroj Devi D/o Nanak Chand VPO Churru      11.4.78 10th356/700   No       5.0       -           4 9.0    Underage. 4. Rekha Dhiman D/o   Jagdish Lal VPO Churru           26.8.77            10+2    Absent 5. Sona Devi D/o Paras Ram V.P.O. Churru      23.4.72            10 th Absent Sd/- C.D.P.O Amb Sd/- T.W.O. Amb Sd/- S.D.O. (c) Amb” 4. If selected she will resign as per undertaking. 3. Saroj Devi D/o Nanak Chand VPO Churru      11.4.78 10th356/700   No       5.0       -           4 9.0    Underage. 4. Rekha Dhiman D/o   Jagdish Lal VPO Churru           26.8.77            10+2    Absent 5. Sona Devi D/o Paras Ram V.P.O. Churru      23.4.72            10 th Absent Sd/- C.D.P.O Amb Sd/- T.W.O. Amb Sd/- S.D.O. (c) Amb” 4. This document so filed by the State is self speaking that the total marks which were obtained by the present petitioner in the interview were 20.3, whereas the selected candidate only got 9.9. marks in the process. Despite this, respondent-State did not offer appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was disqualified as her husband was in Government service. This is also evident from the reply so filed on the affidavit of Director, Social & Women's Welfare, H.P. dated 27th April, 1998. 5. Respondent-State had framed guidelines which governs the appointment/engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers. The Policy which was invogue at the time when the interviews took place and appointment was made, is on record. A perusal of the said guidelines demonstrates that there was no embargo in the same, which rendered a candidate ineligible to be considered for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker, if her husband was in Government service. Though in subsequent guidelines issued by the Government, a rider stood incorporated with regard to annual income of the applying candidate, but in the said guidelines in issue, there was no such embargo also. The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that though admittedly there was no such embargo in the guidelines which was invogue at the relevant time, but earlier in the year 1989 such a Policy decision stood taken by the Government, in my considered view does not help the cause of the State, because until and unless such a condition was expressly contained in the guidelines, it could not have been read into the guidelines so as to oust the candidate. 6. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The act of respondent-authority of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Churru, on the ground that her husband was a Government servant, is quashed and set aside. 6. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The act of respondent-authority of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Churru, on the ground that her husband was a Government servant, is quashed and set aside. It goes without saying that in view of the findings so returned by this Court, the appointment offered by the respondent-State to the private respondent is also rendered bad in law. Accordingly, State is ordered to offer appointment to the petitioner forthwith. She shall be entitled for seniority as from the date, the respondent No. 3 was engaged as Anganwadi Worker, however, as far as back wages are concerned, in my considered view, interest of justice will be served in case the petitioner is monetarily compensated by the State by paying a lump sum amount of Rs.25000/-. Though this Court has held that the appointment offered to the private respondent is bad in law, in view of the decision so given by this Court, however, in case the respondent-State intends to protect the appointment offered to the private respondent, it can do so. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also miscellaneous application (s), if any. No order as to costs.