ORDER 1. The present intra-Court appeal takes an exception to the order dated 5.5.2017 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the respondent No. 6 has been allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 29.6.2011 is quashed. 2. The facts, succinctly are that in year 2009 an advertisement was issued for the post of Aganwadi Worker for mini Aganbadi Centre, Ward No. 3 Dhulani Mohalla, Gram Panchayat Gunda, District-Katni. The appellant and the respondent No. 5 applied for the said post. After scrutinÁing the candidature of all the candidates, a select list was prepared. The objections were invited and thereafter the final select list was issued. The appellant Smt. Guddi Bai was selected and appointment order was issued pursuant to which she also joined. The respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Katni challenging the appointment of the appellant. The Collector allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 5 and the appointment order of the appellant was quashed. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who set aside the order passed by the Collector. The order of the Commissioner dated 29.6.2011 was challenged by the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. By the impugned order, the writ petition has been allowed and the appointment of the petitioner has been set aside. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellant was not resident of the particular ward of the village wherein the Anganwadi Centre was to run therefore the appointment of the appellant is not in accordance with the policy. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the policy of the State Government dated 10.7.2007 regarding the appointment of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Sahayka. It is submitted by him that as per the eligibility required for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, the candidate has to be permanent resident of the concerned village and not of ward. It is also contended that the Anganwadi Centres are established in each village and not in the wards. The Gram Panchayat is divided into different wards for the purpose of election of a Panch in each ward for the purpose of constitution of Gram Panchayat. It is also contended that the Anganwadi Centres are established in each village and not in the wards. The Gram Panchayat is divided into different wards for the purpose of election of a Panch in each ward for the purpose of constitution of Gram Panchayat. Anganwadi Centre is established in Gram Panchayat and not in a particular ward of Anganwadi Centre which is meant to cater the services of all the parts of the Gram Panchayat and therefore all the residents of same Gram Panchayat are entitled to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker if the candidate fulfill requisite eligibility for it irrespective of resident of a particular ward of the same Gram Panchayat. 5. On perusal of the relevant clause of the instructions/circulars dated 10.7.2007, we find that the requirement to a candidate is that he should be a resident of the same village. The said relevant clause reads as under : ^^¼2½ vkosfndk lacaf/kr xzke@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksuk pkfg;sA xzke@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ esa LFkk;h fuoklh ds Áek.k ds fy;s jk'ku dkMZ@lacaf/kr xzke@uxjh; {ks= ds okMZ dh v|ru ernkrk lwph@v|ru chih,y lwph esa efgyk dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg, vFkok vfookfgr efgyk gksus ij mlds firk dk uke rFkk fookfgr efgyk gksus mlds ifr dk uke ntZ gksuk pkfg,A mDr nksuksa Hkh miyC/k ugha gksus ij ,lŒMhŒ,eŒ@rglhynkj }kjk tkjh LFkkuh; fuokl ds Áek.k i= dks ekU; fd;k tk ldrk gSA^^ 6. It is also prescribed that in a case of equal marks, a woman candidate who is older in age shall be given preference. 7. The special note appended to the clause A of the instruction reads as under : ^^fo"k; & nks ;k nks ls vf/kd vkosndksa ds leku vad ÁkIr gksus ij vf/kd vk;q fd efgyk dks p;u esa ÁkFkfedrk nh tk,xhA** 8. Thus, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted that since the appellant was not resident of the particular ward of the Gram Panchayat, therefore she is not eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment. Relevant clause of the instructions is manifest that the candidate has to be resident of the village and the same seems to be rational as Anganwadi Centre is being established for rendering services in the village not for particular ward of the village. Relevant clause of the instructions is manifest that the candidate has to be resident of the village and the same seems to be rational as Anganwadi Centre is being established for rendering services in the village not for particular ward of the village. Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge has committed an error while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the appellant was not eligible to be considered for appointment on the ground that she was not resident of Ward No. 6 of village. 9. Since it is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent No. 5 had secured equal marks and the appellant is older in age than the respondent No. 5, we find that there was no illegality or error in the selection of the appellant for the post of Anaganbadi Karyakarta. 10. Accordingly, writ appeal is allowed. Order passed the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the appointment of the appellant is upheld.