JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the appointment letter issued in the name of Babita Kumari (respondent No. 7), who has been illegally and arbitrarily appointed to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad. Further prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In view of Integrated Child Development Project Scheme (for short “ICDS”), a centrally sponsored scheme floated by the Union of India for the development of women and child of the rural areas, the provision of appointment of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) as well as Sahayika for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad for proper implementation of the said ICDS is being carried out by the government. In view of the aforesaid guidelines, notices were issued inviting applications for appointment of Aanganbari Sevika for the Aanganbari Centre at Mairanwatand, Dhanbad. In terms of the aforesaid notice, an Aam Sabha was called on 23.12.2015 headed by the competent authority of Dhanbad, wherein all the concerned persons were present. It is the case of the petitioner that as she fulfilled the requisite qualifications, she applied in the prescribed format for the same along with other candidates, who also fulfilled the requisite qualifications. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though she fulfilled the requisite qualification and as per the rules and guidelines, has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 7, who has been selected for the post of Aanganbari Sevika, her case was not considered by the respondents. The respondent-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily appointed one Babita Kumari (respondent No. 7) in the instant case on the ground that her age is more than petitioner and she fulfills the requisite qualification as matriculation is the minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of Aanganbari Sevika. As the case of the petitioner was not considered, she moved before the respondent-authorities by preferring representation (Annexure-3) but the same was not considered and hence, she was constrained to move before this Hon’ble Court by filing the instant writ application for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. P.P. Roy assisted by Mr. As the case of the petitioner was not considered, she moved before the respondent-authorities by preferring representation (Annexure-3) but the same was not considered and hence, she was constrained to move before this Hon’ble Court by filing the instant writ application for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. P.P. Roy assisted by Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents have illegally considered the case of the respondent No. 7, whereas, as per the rules and guidelines, the petitioner was fully entitled for consideration of her case, as she has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 7 in Intermediate. Learned counsel demonstrate that she has obtained 57% marks in Intermediate and 49% marks in Matriculation, whereas, respondent No. 7 has obtained 48% marks in the Intermediate and 58.6% marks in Matriculation. Learned counsel further argues that person having higher qualification are to be preferred for appointment to the post of Aanganbari Sevika. Placing reliance on the rules and guidelines dated 01.04.2016, learned counsel argued that in view of the said guidelines, matriculation is entail as the minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of Aanganbari Sevika. Petitioner and respondent No. 7 both fulfills the required minimum qualification which is not in dispute. The respondent No. 7 as well as the petitioner both are intermediate but admittedly petitioner has obtained higher marks than the respondent No. 7 but dehors the rules, the respondent No. 7 was appointed and the respondent-State has completely misinterpreted the rules as quoted in memo No. 872 dated 01.04.2016. Learned counsel submits that in case of tie only, the marks of matriculation was to be considered and further, the age was to be considered but here there is no question of tie, as petitioner has obtained higher marks i.e. 57% in intermediate and as such, there is no question of tie and what has been interpreted and considered by the respondents are completely against the rule dated 01.04.2016. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Singh argues that in view of the rules and guidelines dated 01.04.2016 (Annexure - A/1 to the counter-affidavit) there is no illegality or any infirmity on the part of the respondents. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Singh argues that in view of the rules and guidelines dated 01.04.2016 (Annexure - A/1 to the counter-affidavit) there is no illegality or any infirmity on the part of the respondents. As the matriculation is the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Aanganbari Sevika, the respondents are justified in considering candidature of the respondent No. 7 as respondent No. 7 has obtained 58.6% marks in matriculation whereas, petitioner has obtained only 49% marks in matriculation. Learned counsel also submits that as per the age also, the age of the respondent No. 7 is more than the petitioner and hence, justifying the stand of the respondents, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in considering the case of the respondent No. 7 and rightly she has been appointed on the said post. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that respondents have wrongly interpreted guidelines dated 01.04.2016. The said guidelines clearly shows that in case of tie the marks of matriculation comes into play. Here in the instant case, there is no question of tie, as the petitioner has secured 57% marks in Intermediate and respondent No. 7 has secured 48% in Intermediate and as such, sub-clause (ii) and (iii) of Clause-2 does not come into play. As question of tie did not arise in the instant case, the application of sub-clause (ii) and (iii) of Clause -2 does not arise. The appointment of respondent No. 7 is dehors the rules and as such, the same is quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.