ORDER : PRANAY VERMA, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11/1/2017 passed by respondents No.2 and 3 as affirmed in appeal by the order dated 13/7/2017 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Collector, District Shajapur, whereby her claim for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Assistant in Anganwadi Centre, Dewlabihar, Tehsil Gulana, District Shajapur has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15/11/2018 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain whereby the second appeal preferred by her against the aforesaid orders has been dismissed. 2. The respondent No.1 / State has issued guidelines dated 10/7/2017 (Annexure R-4/8) in respect of selection and appointment of Anganwadi workers and assistants in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said scheme under Clause B provides the essential qualifications for appointment of an Anganwadi Assistant. The minimum qualification prescribed in the urban and rural area is Class V. As per Clause B-2 of the guidelines, the total marks to be awarded to a candidate are 100 while determining the merit list. The additional qualifications or the circumstances as provided in the said clause prescribes different marks for different circumstances / exigencies. If a candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe she would get 10 marks. If she is below the poverty line she would get 10 marks. If she is a widow / deserted / divorced / below the age of 30 years she would get 10 marks. For Class Vth mark sheet, upto 40% she would get 30 marks and above 40%, for every two percent she would get one mark and if she has passed Class 8 th or possesses higher educational qualification she would get 10 marks. 3. As per the said guidelines, advertisement was issued by respondent No.1 in a news paper for appointment of Anganwadi Assistant in Anganwadi Center, Devlabihar, Tehsil Gulana, District Shajapur. In response to the said advertisement, petitioner, respondent No.4 and others applied for the said post. Along with the application, they submitted documents for the purpose of proving their eligibility, qualification and entitlement to get additional marks. After receipt of all the applications, the same were considered by the District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Shajapur, respondent No.2 and 3 and a provisional merit list was published on 22/12/2016. Along with the application, they submitted documents for the purpose of proving their eligibility, qualification and entitlement to get additional marks. After receipt of all the applications, the same were considered by the District Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Shajapur, respondent No.2 and 3 and a provisional merit list was published on 22/12/2016. Therein the petitioner was placed at Serial No.4 whereas respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No.1. It was stated therein that any objection to the list can be preferred upto 29/12/2016. 4. In response to the provisional merit list, the petitioner submitted her objection before respondents No.2 and 3 stating that along with her application she had submitted her Class Vth mark sheet but marks have not been given to her for the same and that she deserves to be awarded appropriate marks for the same. The aforesaid objection was rejected by respondents No.2 and 3 by order dated 11/1/2017 and consequently respondent No.4 was selected for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Assistant. 5. Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, District Shajapur which was dismissed by him by order dated 13/7/2017 by observing that along with her application, the petitioner had not furnished her class Vth mark sheet hence she could not have been awarded any marks for the same. The mark sheet furnished subsequently cannot be taken into consideration. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain which has been dismissed by him by order dated 15/11/2018 by observing that the order passed by the Collector is proper. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities below have erred in not granting appointment to the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Assistant and in instead appointing respondent No.4. Along with her application, the petitioner had annexed her class Vth mark sheet but the same has illegally not been taken into consideration by the authorities. After publication of the provisional merit list the petitioner had submitted her class Vth mark sheet along with her objection. The same was bound to be considered prior to publication ofthe final list. It is not the case where the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification but is a case where at best proof thereof was not furnished along with the application. The same was bound to be considered prior to publication ofthe final list. It is not the case where the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification but is a case where at best proof thereof was not furnished along with the application. The same was in any case furnished before final consideration of the candidatures of the candidates on merit hence class Vth mark sheet of the petitioner was bound to be given effect to. If the said mark sheet is taken into consideration it would be clear that it is the petitioner who is more meritorious for appointment. It is hence submitted that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below be set aside and the petitioner be appointed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda V/s. Chairman, JEE & Ors (2005) 9 SCC 779 , Charles K. Skaria & Ors. V/s. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors (1980) 2 SCC 752 , Renu Devi V/s. Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena 2016 (4) MPLJ 223 and W.A.No.387 of 2020 ( Smt. Mamta Shrivastava V/s. Women & Child Development Department ) decided on 14/02/2022. 7. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that along with her application, the petitioner had not furnished her class Vth mark sheet hence no marks could have been awarded to her for the same. The mark sheet was furnished by the petitioner only along with her objection submitted on 27/6/2016 after publication of the provisional merit list which could not have been considered. The authorities below have hence not committed any error in passing their impugned orders. It is also submitted that there is no provision that along with the objection additional documents can be submitted by a candidate hence the class Vth mark sheet submitted by the petitioner along with her objection was rightly not considered. 8. Reply has also been filed by respondent No.4 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 has submitted that respondent No.4 is well qualified for appointment to the post in question. She possesses all the requisite qualifications for appointment. All the documents in that regard were furnished by her along with her application and she was rightly placed at Serial No.1 in the provisional merit list which has been eventually confirmed. She has been awarded 67 marks whereas petitioner could secure only 60 marks. She possesses all the requisite qualifications for appointment. All the documents in that regard were furnished by her along with her application and she was rightly placed at Serial No.1 in the provisional merit list which has been eventually confirmed. She has been awarded 67 marks whereas petitioner could secure only 60 marks. The petitioner had not submitted her class Vth mark sheet along with her application hence she has rightly not been given any marks for the same. The mark sheet of the petitioner if any, was filed by her along with her objection which could not have been considered in view of the circular dated 31/8/2017 (Annexure R/2) of the State Government. It is hence submitted that the authorities below have not committed any error in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner inview of which the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had along with her application itself submitted her class Vth mark sheet but from a perusal of the receipt of her application dated 24/10/2016 (Annexure P/2), it is evident that the same was not furnished. The class VIIIth, Xth and XIIth mark sheets were submitted by her and there is a tick mark above all of them. However above class Vth mark sheet there is no such tick mark. The authorities below have concurrently recorded a finding that along with her application, class Vth mark sheet was not submitted by the petitioner which is a pure finding of fact arrived at by them on the basis of the record which is not liable to be interfered with in a Writ Petition. The same is hence affirmed. 11. In the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3 it has been stated in paragraph No.2 and 6 that the class Vth mark sheet was not submitted by the petitioner along with her application but the same was filed by her along with her objection to the provisional merit list on 27/12/2016, ie., prior to publication of the final merit list. The reason for its non-consideration is stated to be the guidelines (Annexure R-4/2). 12. The reason for its non-consideration is stated to be the guidelines (Annexure R-4/2). 12. The issue as to whether in the matter of appointment of Anganwadi Assistant, mark sheet of Class Vth even if the same was not filed along with the application can be considered at a subsequent stage has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Mamta Shrivastava (supra) by considering the view of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda (supra) and Charles K. Sharia (supra). It has been held as under :- “10 . Facts are no more in many controversies in this case, as respondent No.5 secured 65.71 marks and this appellant secured 59.19 marks in the 5th class. The candidature of respondent no.5 was considered as she did not file the mark sheet of 5th class but filed the mark sheet of 8th class. The core issue is whether such defect is fatal in nature? The Writ Court has observed that it is not a case of appellant/ petitioner that respondent No.5 had not qualified 5th class examination but the only dispute is that she did not submit the mark sheet along with the application form. As per the advertisement, the candidate must possess the minimum qualification of 5th class pass and she would be entitled to additional marks for passing 8th class. The mandatory condition is possession of minimum qualification which could be gathered from the mark sheet of the higher class. The proof of the qualification can be submitted later on and the same has rightly been considered by the appellant authority and directed for appointment of respondent No.5. The aforesaid view has been approved by the Apex Court in case of Dolly Chhanda and Charles K. Sharia (supra). 13. In the aforesaid case the mark sheet of class Vth was not submitted by the candidate along with the application but was submitted at the appellate stage and yet this Court held that the appellate authority was right in considering the same since the mandatory condition is possession of minimum qualification as on the date of submission of the application and proof of the qualification can be submitted later on also. 14. In the present case also, the class Vth mark sheet was submitted by the petitioner along with her objection to the provisional merit list and prior to preparation of the final list. 14. In the present case also, the class Vth mark sheet was submitted by the petitioner along with her objection to the provisional merit list and prior to preparation of the final list. When the same was submitted the process of selection was still under way and had not been finalized. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not possess the necessary educational qualification ie., of having passed class Vth examination. Their only objection is that the mark sheet was not submitted by the petitioner along with her application. Since the same was submitted prior to preparation of final merit list the same was mandatorily required to be considered before finalizing the process of selection which has however not been done by respondents No.1 to 3. 15. Annexure R/2 filed by respondents No.1 to 3 dated 31/3/2017 issued by the Joint Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bhopal to District Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Sagar is merely a guideline issued upon an enquiry having been made. The same would not have the effect of laying down any principle to the effect that if the document as regards educational qualification is not submitted along with the application the same cannot be submitted later on and even if submitted cannot be considered. Pertinently, in the guideline it has been stated that it would not beproper to consider documents filed along with the objections. It has not been stated in a categoric manner that such documents cannot at all be taken into consideration. The letter being a mere guideline in absence of any such provision in the Circular dated 10/7/2007, cannot be treated to be having any legal binding effect. Moreover, the circular being in direct conflict with the decision in the case of Smt. Mamta Shrivastav (supra) cannot be acted upon. Reliance on the said document by the respondents is hence of no avail to them. 16. From the provisional merit list Annexure P/10 it is observed that for non-production of class Vth mark sheet the petitioner had been awarded 30 marks by presuming that she had passed class Vth as she had produced the class 8 th and 11 th mark sheet and for 40%, which is the minimum passing mark, she has been awarded 30 marks. However when her class Vth mark sheet is perused it is seen that she had obtained 66% marks. However when her class Vth mark sheet is perused it is seen that she had obtained 66% marks. As per the Circular dated 10/7/2007 she is entitled for award of one mark for every 2% ie, total 13 marks extra. Thus, for her class Vth mark sheet she ought to have been awarded 43 marks but has been illegally awarded only 30 marks. When these additional 13 marks are added to the 60 marks awarded to the petitioner her total marks become 73. Respondent No.4 has obtained total 67 marks only. Consequently, the petitioner ought to have been placed at Serial No.1 and not at Serial No.4 in the final merit list as has illegally been done by respondents No.1 to 3. 17. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 15/11/2018 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, the order dated 13/7/2017 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Collector, District Shajapur and the order dated 11/1/2017 passed by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Shajapur are hereby set aside and respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Assistant in question while removing respondent No.4 from the said post. Let the same be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 18. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off. 19. No costs.