Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no.1 allowing the appeal filed by respondent no. 4 thereby setting aside the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika and directing a fresh process of holding interviews for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sevika.

3] In the process for recruitment that was held for appointing an Anganwadi Sevika, steps were taken as per Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010. On the basis of qualifications of the respective candidates, the petitioner was awarded 77 marks out of 90 while respondent No. 4 was awarded 76 marks out of 90. In the interviews that were held subsequently the petitioner was awarded an average of 7.75 out of 10 while the respondent no.4 was awarded 4.25 marks out of 10. The total marks out of 100 were then taken into consideration and it was found that petitioner had scored 84.75 marks while the respondent no.4 had secured 80.25 marks. The respondent no.2 thereafter approved the selection of the petitioner. Being aggrieved the respondent no.4 filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner alleging that she was entitled for preference being a widow as stipulated in Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010. The Divisional Commissioner found that in the interviews that were held the petitioner had been granted full marks by two members and as same was contrary to certain directions issued by the Government, the selection of the petitioner was set aside with a direction to conduct a fresh process by holding interviews a fresh.

4] Shri K. P. Mahalle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no bar to grant full marks when the interviews were held for making selection of Anganwadi Sevika. He submitted that though two members had granted full marks to the petitioner the other two members had not done so and therefore it could not be said that the petitioner had been favoured by the interview committee which had conducted the interviews. He submitted that after the petitioner's selection on 16.05.2011, directions came to be issued on 25.05.2011 against awarding full marks in interviews. Subsequently, Resolution dated 15.09.2011 came into effect and the Divisional Commissioner by considering directions and the Government Resolution issued subsequent to her selection have set aside the selection of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the directions relied upon by the Divisional Commissioner could not be given retrospective effect to hold that the petitioner's selection was bad in law.

5] Shri V. Dahat, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 supported the impugned order by submitting that the relevant directions and Government Resolution dated 15.09.2011 were taken into consideration by the respondent no.1 and, therefore, the impugned order to conduct the interviews afresh did not call for any interference. It was submitted that in the interviews that were held two members had granted full marks to the petitioner and the same was contrary to the communication dated 25.05.2011. As the appeal was pending when Government Resolution dated 15.09.2011 came into force, same should have been taken into consideration. Smt. B. P. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the impugned order by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 15.09.2011. Shri R. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 pointed out that the directions dated 16.05.2011 relied upon are subsequent to the selection of the petitioner.

6] I have considered the respective submissions and I have gone through the documents filed on record. The selection process to appoint Anganwadi Sevika was conducted as per Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010. After the interviews were held the respondent no. 2 on 16.05.2011 upheld the selection of the petitioner on the ground that she had scored higher marks than respondent no.4. Perusal of the memorand