P. B. Bajanthri, J. – Re: I.A. No. 1 of 2023 Heard I.A. No. 1 of 2023 for condonation of delay in filing LPA 1706 of 2019. For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit, in the interest of litigant delay of about 25 days in filing LPA stands condoned. 2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 stands allowed. 3. The present LPA is filed in assailing the order date 23.10.2019 passed in CWJC No. 17784 of 2019. 4. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.03.2007 for the post of Anganwadi Sevika appellant and 9th respondent among others participated. The advertisement stipulated last date of submission of application as 09.04.2007. Further, Aam Sabha was constituted for selection on 19.06.2007. Comparative merit of the appellant and 9th respondent, 9th Respondent was selected and appointed feeling aggrieved by the selection and appointment of 9th respondent appellant invoked each and every remedy available to her. The latest remedy is in filing CWJC No. 17784 of 2019 in questioning the validity of the various orders including collector, Sitamarhi order dated 19.03.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the respective authorities including learned single judge have not apprised that the constitution of Aam Sabha and selection of 9th respondent and appointment is contrary to Rule 5(d) vk¡xuckMh Ik;Zosf{kdk@lsfodk@lgkf;dk p;u ekxZnf'kZdk Rules 5( d ) reads as under: – 5-¼d½ iapk;r Lrjh; p;u lfefr-&lesfdr cky fodkl lsok ;kstuk ds vUrxZr vk¡xuckM+h dsUnz ij lsfodk@lgkf;dk ds p;u ds fy, iapk;r Lrj ij ,d p;u lfefr gksxh ftldk Lo:i fuEuor gksxk%& 1- lacafèkr iapk;r ds eqf[k;k& vè;{k 2- lacafèkr iapk;r ds mi&eqf[k;k& mikè;{k 3- Ckky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh@ftyk inkfèkdkjh }kjk izfrfu;qDr inkfèkdkjh ¼budh mifLFkfr vfuok;Z gksxh½ fo'ks"k vkeaf=r lnL; 4- vk¡axuckM+h dsUnz ds iks"kd {ks=k ls lacafèkr xzke iapk;r ds okMZ lnL; LknL; 5- Iakpk;r dh vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr dh ,d efgyk lnL; ¼iapk;r }kjk euksuhr½ LknL; 6- fudVre izkFkfed fo|ky;@eè; fo|ky; ds izèkkukè;kid@izHkkjh f'k{kd LknL; 7- Ikapk;r lsod LknL; lfpoA UkksV% iapk;r lfefr Lrj ij mi;qZDRk dafMdk 5 ds vkyksd esa vuqlwfpr tkfr dh nks ;k nks ls vfèkd lnL; miyCèk gksa rks iz'uxr vk¡xuckM+h {ks= dks izfrfufèkRo djus okyh lnL; vFkok mez esa ojh; lnL; lfefr dh lnL; gksxhA vuqlwfpr tkfr dh lnL; miyCèk ugha gksus ij Øe'k% vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ vFkok fiNM+k oxZ vFkok lkekU; oxZ dh lnL; lfefr dh lnL; gksxhA 6. Such a person was not participated even though it is mandatory and so also ( mi eqf[k;k ) was also not participated. In other words, complete forum in terms of Rule 5(d) was not adhered insofar as selection and appointment of 9th respondent- Asha Kumari. The other ground taken is that appellant - Kumod Kumari has passed Intermediate on 31.05.2007, and she is entitled to award of 10 more marks and it has not been awarded. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforementioned contention and submitted that appellant is not entitled to 10 marks for Intermediate with reference to acquisition of such qualification on 31.05.2007. For the reasons that the last date of submission of application with reference to Advertisement dated 30.03.2007 was 09.04.2007. On this point, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one week earlier to the Aam Sabha date is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of eligibility criteria and award of marks. However, the appellant has not questioned the validity of fixation of last date or read with date of siting of Aam Sabha on 19.06.2007 or in the alternative she should have sought for a direction to read down the eligibility criteria as on 09.04.2007 and it should have been as on 12.06.2007 with reference to date of Aam Sabha siting on 19.06.2007. In the absence of such challenge to the fixation of date of eligibility, the appellant has not made out a case. 8. No doubt, the appellant has made out a case insofar as constitution of Aam Sabha with reference to 5( d ) cited (supra). At the same time, Respondent No. 9 is working for the last about one and half decade and she is more merited than the appellant with reference to date of Aam Sabha read with last date of submission of application. If the appellant had questioned the validity of last date for the purpose of eligibility criteria and for award of certain marks for the Intermediate in that event, we would have examined the merits and demerits of appellant and 9th Respondent insofar as award of marks to various issues. Hence, appellant has not made out a case. 9. The appellant is before various forum from 2007- 2008 till date. Hence, appellant has not made out a case. 9. The appellant is before various forum from 2007- 2008 till date. Therefore, it is necessary to pay compensation for the reasons that concerned officials like Selecting and Appointing Authority have failed to follow Rule 5( d ). Even if it is curable defect still the appellant has not made out a case on comparative merit with selected and appointed candidate. 10. Having regard to the defect in the initial stage in respect of Constitution of Aam Sabha with reference to Rule 5(d), ordinarily it would go to the root of the matter and we should have set aside the entire selection process for want of proper forum in the light of Rule 5( d ). However, it is not proper for this Court to displace 9th respondent for no fault on her part and when the fault is on the part of the official respondent. Therefore, we quantify the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). Rupees One Lakh compensation shall be paid by the official respondents to the appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Accordingly, the present LPA No. 1706 of 2019 stands disposed of.