JUDGMENT : Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 1. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order dated 31/10/2017 and 18/10/2017 by which his services have been put to an end by Collector, Khargone. 02-The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was issued inviting application for the post of Anganwadi Worker on 14/10/2016, the petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker, however, a complaint was made by respondent No.3 before the Collector and the Collector has passed the impugned order by assigning the reason in the impugned order that the petitioner's father is a Panchayat Secretary. The question before this Court is that whether the reason assigned by the Collector, disqualifies the petitioner for grant of appointment as Anganwadi Worker or not. 3. Paragarph No.4 of policy relating to appointment of Anganwadi Worker dated 10/07/2007 (Annex.-P/8) reads as under:- **¼4½ p;fur dh tkus okyh vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dks uk rks Lo;a ljdkjh deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh vFkok iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa@uxjh; fudk;ksa ds fuokZfpr vFkok euksuhr lnL; gksuk pkfg;s vkSj uk gh p;u izfdz;k ls izR;{k laca/k j[kus okyksa dh lxs laca/kh gksuk pkfg;s A lxs lacaf/k;ksa ls vfHkizk;] ekrk] firk] HkkbZ] cgu] ifr] ifRu] iq=&iq=h ,oa iq=&o/kq A** The aforesaid paragraph in the policy provides that the person who has applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker should not be government servant nor any officer under the Panchayati Raj System. The petitioner is neither government servant nor an employee under the Panchayati Raj System. The aforesaid clause provides that no person relating to the applicant should be member of the selection committee. 4. The petitioner is neither government servant nor an employee under the Panchayati Raj System. The aforesaid clause provides that no person relating to the applicant should be member of the selection committee. 4. The constitution of selection committee is provided under clause l&2&¼p;u lfefr½ and the same reads as under:- **l&2&pu lfefr%& p;u lfefr }kjk izkIr vkosnuksa dk ijh{k.k vkosnu izkfIr dh vafre frfFk ls 10 fnol ds vanj dj esfjV fyLV ds vk/kkj ij vfUre lwph rS;kj dh tkosxhA ;fn p;u lfefr }kjk 10 fnol ds Hkhrj vfUre lwph rS;kj ugha dh tkrh gS] rks dysDVj }kjk vfUre lwph tkjh dh tk ldsxh A p;u lfefr esa lacaf/kr ifj;kstuk ds fuEukuafdr lnL; lfEefyr gksxsa%& 1 vuqfoHkkxh; n.Mkf/kdkjh ¼,l Mh ,e½ v/;{k 2 Ckky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh Lkfpo 3 xzkeh.k ifj;kstuk ds fy;s eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r ,oa 'kgjhifj;kstuk ds fy;s uxjh; fudk; ds izeq[k iz'kkldh; vf/kdkjh& lnL; 4 xzkeh.k ifj;kstuk ds fy;s tuin iapk;r dh ,oa 'kgjh ifj;kstuk ds fy;s uxjh; fudk; dh LokLF; ,oa efgyk cky fodkl lfefr dk v/;{k& lnL; 5 xzkeh.k ifj;kstuk ds fy, v/;{k tuin iapk;r }kjk ukekafdr tuin iapk;r dh ,d efgyk tuin lnL; ,oa 'kgjh ifj;kstuk LknL; ds fy, uxj ikfydk v/;{k@egkikSj }kjk ukekafdr ,d efgyk ik"kZn 5. The petitioner's father is a Panchayat Secretary. He is certainly not a member of selection committee and therefore, as per the policy governing the field, the petitioner is certainly entitled for selection on the post of Anganwadi Worker and the learned Collector has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner by passing an order dated 24/03/2017. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Collector, as it has not been passed in consonance with the policy issued on the subject, deserves to be quashed and therefore, order dated 31/10/2017 and 18/10/2017 are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits except back wages. Certified copy as per rules.