JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned AGP, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw and learned advocate Ms.Solanki waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of challenging the action of the respondent authorities appointing the respondent No.4 on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Chandana Muvada Anganwadi, Taluka Dehgam, District Gandhinagar, instead of the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though she is having more merits than the respondent No.4, no appointment order has been issued in her favour. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Prasad appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner inquired about her non-appointment and the appointment of the respondent No.3 was issued by the respondent authority by communication dated 20.10.2020, she was informed that her application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker has not been approved as she has only produced the Semester mark-sheet of the Diploma course, which was not required or called for as per the advertisement. He has submitted that in fact, the petitioner had honestly filled in the form of her educational qualification stating that she has passed Standard XII and Semester-I and Semester-II of the Diploma Course and accordingly, uploaded her documents. It is submitted that the resolution of the State Government dated 25.11.2019 provides for mentioning of the educational qualification and accordingly, she has filled in the same. He has submitted that the resolution nowhere provides that in case of non-holding of the Diploma Course, the candidates have to mention in the application form that they are not holding the Diploma. 5. Reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr.Prasad on paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019. He has submitted that as per the provision of paragraph No.3.5 of the resolution, the candidate, who is seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker should possess minimum qualification of Standard XII or Standard X and Diploma of 02 years obtained from AICTE approved Institution. It is submitted that the petitioner was having minimum qualification of Standard XII and accordingly, she has filled in the application form. It is submitted that the petitioner was having minimum qualification of Standard XII and accordingly, she has filled in the application form. He has submitted that the merit-list prepared on 22.09.2020 indicates that the petitioner is far more meritorious than the respondent No.4, who is having only 22.54 merit score, whereas the petitioner is having 40.17 merit score and her educational score is also more than the respondent No.4. Thus, it is urged that the appointment of the respondent No.4 is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi worker. 6. While placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent authority, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the online application of the petitioner was not filled in by giving the requisite information and, when it was noticed that the petitioner was not having qualification of Diploma or graduation and the mark-sheet of the relevant course was not annexed on account of such misleading information, her application was rejected and hence, she was not offered the appointment. He has submitted that the petitioner was having only mark-sheet of Semester I and Semester II of the Diploma Course undertaken after Standard XII and since she is not having the Diploma Certificate, her application for the appointment on the post of Anganwadi worker was rejected. Thus, it is submitted that in view of provision of paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019, the respondent No.4 has been appropriately appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker. 7. Learned advocate Ms.Solanki appearing for the respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw. CONCLUSION: 8. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.08.2020 issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi worker by filing online application on 29.08.2020. Thereafter, it appears that after undergoing the selection, the respondents prepared the merit-list on 22.09.2022 (Annexure-G at page No.46) and the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1 having total merit score of 40.17 and the respondent No.4 was having merit score of 22.54. A perusal of the aforesaid merit list reveals that the educational qualification score of the petitioner is 30.17, whereas educational qualification score of the respondent No.4 is 12.54. Thus, the petitioner is far more meritorious than the respondent No.4. A perusal of the aforesaid merit list reveals that the educational qualification score of the petitioner is 30.17, whereas educational qualification score of the respondent No.4 is 12.54. Thus, the petitioner is far more meritorious than the respondent No.4. Despite the aforesaid position, the petitioner was not offered the appointment, which led her to filing the appeal. Having facing the rejection of the appeal, the present writ petition is filed. 9. Both the learned advocates for the respective parties have placed reliance on Paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019. Paragraph No.3.5 of the said resolution stipulates that minimum qualification for the post of Anganwadi worker is Standard XII or Standard X and 02 years Diploma Course from any AICTE approved Institution. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 are having Standard XII qualification i.e. minimum qualification. The provision of paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019 is translated and incorporated as under(translated from Gujarati): “7.6 Upon expiry of time period for online application, the concerned CDPOs shall scrutinize the details filled up and the particulars shown in the certificates uploaded by the candidates for the vacant posts in their blocks. Only those online applications in which details are filled up as per the particulars shown in the certificates of the candidates possessing eligibility, age and educational qualification in accordance with the general conditions, shall be considered for selection in honorary service of Anganwadi Worker/Tedagar. In case where it comes to the notice that there is a discrepancy between the details filled up by the candidates in online application and that of the certificates, such application shall be considered as cancelled. The concerned Program Officer shall supervise the whole process and approve the details scrutinized by the CDPOs online.” 10. Accordingly, the petitioner filled in her application form. A perusal of the application form reveals that the petitioner has filled in the following details(translated from Gujarati): Details of Academic and Educational Qualification Education Marks obtained Total Marks Trial State Examination Board/Uni. Class-10 421 600 1 GUJARAT GSEB Class-12 Pass 466 700 1 GUJARAT GHSEB Diploma or graduation with minimum two or more years duration after Class-12 Sem-1 386 750 2 GUJARAT HNGU Diploma or graduation with minimum two or more years duration after Class-12 Sem-2 457 750 1 GUJARAT HNGU 11. Class-10 421 600 1 GUJARAT GSEB Class-12 Pass 466 700 1 GUJARAT GHSEB Diploma or graduation with minimum two or more years duration after Class-12 Sem-1 386 750 2 GUJARAT HNGU Diploma or graduation with minimum two or more years duration after Class-12 Sem-2 457 750 1 GUJARAT HNGU 11. The aforesaid details mention that in fact, the petitioner has very honestly filled her marks of Standard XII and marks of Semester I and Semester II of the Diploma Course and accordingly, she has annexed the mark-sheets of both, Standard XII and Diploma. The respondent authorities, placing the petitioner at Sr.No.1 of the meritlist, has subsequently, rejected her application for the reason that she has not stated that in fact, she is non-graduate or she should have kept the ‘column’ in the application form with regard to Diploma Course as “blank”. The entire case of the respondent authorities only hinges on the alleged defect, as pointed out in the communication dated 20.10.2020 written by the respondent authorities to the petitioner. The petitioner has very honestly and candidly mentioned her educational qualification online as per the provisions of paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019. It cannot be said that the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of paragraph No.7.6 by filling in the correct information with regard to her educational qualification. If the petitioner has not completed her Diploma Course, she was not supposed to fill in false information, and whatever semesters of Diploma she has appeared, she has candidly mentioned in her application. The authority has misread and misrepresented the condition of Paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution, while refusing the appointment of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner has made any misrepresentation in the her application form. 12. It cannot be remotely said that the petitioner has made any incorrect or false information in her application form and on the contrary, has scrupulously followed the provision of the resolution. Thus, the respondent authorities were absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application form of the petitioner that too, after placing her at Sr.No.1 in the merit-list. The respondent authorities, before appointing the respondent No.4 and finalizing the procedure of selection and finalizing the merits, were supposed to verify all the aspects, which are filled in by the candidate in the application form. 13. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition succeeds. The respondent authorities, before appointing the respondent No.4 and finalizing the procedure of selection and finalizing the merits, were supposed to verify all the aspects, which are filled in by the candidate in the application form. 13. In light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned action of the respondent authorities to appoint the respondent No.4 to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Chandana Muvada Anganwadi, Taluka Dehgam, District Gandhinagar, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi worker from the date of appointment of the respondent No.4 with benefits of seniority only. It is also clarified that no adverse action shall be taken against the respondent No.4 with respect of recovery of any salary from her. 14. The present writ petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute.