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 entit