JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) I.A. No. 1143 of 2024 1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No.1143 of 2024 is allowed and the 86 days’ delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. 5. I.A. No.1143 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 315 of 2023 6. The instant appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment/order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 516 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No.10 herein has been allowed by cancelling the appointment of Ankita Kumari, the appellant herein. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated which reads as under:- It is the case of the petitioner that on the direction of Child Development Project Officer, an Aam Sabha was held for appointment of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre, Huntergunj Bazar-cum-Kumhartoli and after the proceedings of the Aam Sabha, Smt. Reena Kumari (Respondent No.10 herein) was selected as she was having the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post. 8. Thereafter, provisional appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and her case was recommended by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra as she was the fittest candidate being selected by the Aam Sabha and her appointment was made in accordance with law. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that one Ankita Kumari (Appellant herein) having the educational qualification of B.A. approached the respondent-authorities claiming that she has the highest qualification amongst the candidates appeared before Aam Sabha and as such, she should be selected and appointed to the post of Anganbari Sevika, Anganbari Centre, Huntergunj Bazar-cum-Kumhartoli. 10. Thereafter, the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra cancelled the appointment of the present petitioner and issued order of appointment in favour of Respondent No. 10/appellant herein. 11. 10. Thereafter, the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra cancelled the appointment of the present petitioner and issued order of appointment in favour of Respondent No. 10/appellant herein. 11. Against the aforesaid order, writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.516 of 2012, was preferred by Reena Kumari, Respondent No.10 herein, which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2023 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.12.2011 by which Anikta Kumari, appellant herein, was appointed after cancelling the appointment of Reena Kumari, Respondent No.10 herein. Against the aforesaid order the instant appeal has been preferred. 12. It is evident from the factual aspect that in pursuance to the notice for engagement of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre, Huntergunj Bazar-cum-Kumhartoli, an Aam Sabha was convened in which the writ petitioner, namely, Reena Kumari, along with Ankita Kumari, the appellant herein as also others had participated for consideration of their candidature. 13. The Aam Sabha, in its meeting convened on 17.05.2010, has found the writ petitioner – Reena Kumari, Respondent No.10 herein, as successful candidate and in the majority view she has been declared to be successful candidate and based upon that she has been engaged but the Respondent No.10-the appellant herein, has made an objection before the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra regarding engagement of the writ petitioner – Reena Kumari on the ground that the she (appellant herein) is more qualified in comparison to that of the writ petitioner, namely, Reena Kumari. 14. The District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra has cancelled the engagement of Reena Kumari and issued the engagement letter in favour of the appellant who was Respondent No.10 to the writ petition. 15. Reena Kumari has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.516 of 2012, questioning the cancellation of her engagement. 16. The learned Single Judge has called upon the State as also the Respondent No.10 – the appellant herein. 17. The State as well as Respondent No.10 filed their respective counter affidavit. 15. Reena Kumari has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.516 of 2012, questioning the cancellation of her engagement. 16. The learned Single Judge has called upon the State as also the Respondent No.10 – the appellant herein. 17. The State as well as Respondent No.10 filed their respective counter affidavit. The State has supported the process of selection of the appellant but the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the fact that the selection of Reena Kumari, the writ petitioner, was made by the Aam Sabha and, as such, there cannot be any interference in the decision so taken by the Aam Sabha and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed by interfering with the order of engagement of the appellant by quashing and setting it aside with a direction for engagement of Reena Kumari, the writ petitioner, as Anganbari Sevika which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 18. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken the ground that as per the Rule, the Selection of the Anganbari Sevika is to be made by giving preference to more qualified candidate. 19. According to the appellant, the appellant is more qualified in comparison to that of the writ petitioner Reena Kumari as also the other candidates who had participated in the process of selection whose candidature has been taken into consideration by the Aam Sabha but ignoring the position of high qualification of the appellant, the writ petitioner Reena Kumari has been selected and engaged. Hence, the very engagement of the writ petitioner, who is respondent No.10 in the present appeal, is contrary to the Rule. 20. It has been contended that when such objection was made before the respondent authorities, the aforesaid aspect of the matter was taken into consideration and thereafter taken a decision by cancelling the order of engagement of the writ petitioner and in consequence thereof, has issued appointment letter in favour of the appellant of the present case. Therefore, the decision so taken by the District Social Welfare Officer cannot be said to suffer from an error since she admittedly is more qualified in comparison to that of the writ petitioner, Reena Kumari. But the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration, hence, the present appeal. 21. Therefore, the decision so taken by the District Social Welfare Officer cannot be said to suffer from an error since she admittedly is more qualified in comparison to that of the writ petitioner, Reena Kumari. But the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration, hence, the present appeal. 21. Although it appears from the order that counter affidavit has been filed supporting the stand which was taken by the Child Development Project Officer by taking the ground that there is no infirmity in the process of selection in favour of the appellant since as per the State, the appellant is more qualified in comparison to that of Reena Kumari, the writ petitioner. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the State has reiterated the said stand herein also. 23. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order as also the pleading made on behalf of respective parties in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit. 24. This Court, in order to decide the issue, is of the view that first the stand of the State is to be taken into consideration as to whether the stand which has been taken by the State can be said to be just and proper which has been negated by the learned Single Judge. 25. The ground which has been taken by the State that the candidate who is possessing more educational qualification is to be given preference. The said aspect of the matter has led the District Social Welfare Officer in interfering with the order of engagement of the writ petitioner. 26. Even accepting the fact that the educational qualification is to be given more weightage but who will give that weightage is the question to be considered by this Court. 27. As per the Rule, the recommendation for engagement is to be made by the Gram Sabha wherein the Gram Sabha has unanimously taken decision by selecting the writ petitioner which would be evident from the minutes of the meeting of the Aam Sabha as has been appended to the paper book. 28. 27. As per the Rule, the recommendation for engagement is to be made by the Gram Sabha wherein the Gram Sabha has unanimously taken decision by selecting the writ petitioner which would be evident from the minutes of the meeting of the Aam Sabha as has been appended to the paper book. 28. Therefore, the competency is vested in the Gram Sabha as per Rules of engagement as has been formulated by the State by way of policy decision and, as such, it is the Gram Sabha who is to recommend and based upon recommendation of the Gram Sabha the competent authority is to issue engagement order. 29. The Gram Sabha, in the present case, has recommended the case of the Reena Kumari, the writ petitioner, but subsequent thereto, when an application has been filed by the appellant-Ankita Kumari, the same has been considered in favour of the appellant by the District Social Welfare Officer. 30. The District Social Welfare Officer, while doing so, according to our considered view, cannot be said to have acted properly since the District Social Welfare Officer has not been vested any independent power to make appointment save and except to act upon on the basis of the recommendation made by the Gram Sabha. Therefore, while interfering with the appointment order of the writ petitioner, namely, Reena Kumari, which was based upon the recommendation of the Gram Sabha wherein the majority view was in favour of Reena Kumari by virtue of the assignment of the reason as contained therein based upon the criteria of the income. 31. The decision so taken by the District Social Welfare Officer, therefore, according to our considered view, will be said to be the excess of its jurisdiction. 32. The matter would have been different if the District Social Welfare Officer would have again called for a meeting of the Gram Sabha for the purpose of consideration of the candidate based upon the merit position but that has not been done by the District Social Welfare Officer. 33. The writ petitioner, after her disengagement, has approached this Court by filing the writ petition wherein the ground has been taken that the Gram Sabha has taken the decision based upon the majority view of the people of the Gram Sabha and, as such, there cannot be any interference by any functionary of the State in the order of engagement. 34. 34. The learned Single Judge has agreed to such ground based upon the policy decision wherein the power has been conferred upon the Gram Sabha for the purpose of selection of the Anganbari Sevika which is to be selected on the basis of the majority view of the people present in the said Aam Sabha. There is no allegation by the appellant that there is any infirmity in conducting the Gram Sabha, rather, the sole ground as has been taken by the appellant is that she is more qualified than the writ petitioner. 35. The learned Single Judge, based upon the aforesaid premise, has come to the conclusive finding that the decision taken by the Gram Sabha since has been interfered by the District Social Welfare Officer, which cannot be said to be just and proper, rather, it is considered as exceeding the jurisdiction which led the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order of engagement of the appellant with a further direction upon the State to re-engage the writ petitioner, namely, Reena Kumari, which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from an error based upon the reason as referred hereinabove. 36. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.