Sanjib Banerjee, J.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was successful in the 2010 process of recruitment of Anganwadi workers, the petitioner has not yet been given an appointment. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have found the petitioner's educational qualification of graduation to be a bar to the petitioner's appointment, though a memorandum of January 4, 2013 has altered the guidelines applicable to Anganwadi workers and a superior educational qualification can no longer be considered as a bar to a person being engaged as an Anganwadi worker.

2. The petitioner says that in view of the Full Bench opinion rendered in the judgment reported at 2010 (2) CLJ(Cal) 321 (Rina Dutta v. Anjali Mahato), the petitioner is entitled to an appointment. The petitioner also relies on a Division Bench judgment reported at 2013 WBLR(Cal) 560 (Madhuri Roy v. State of West Bengal) where Rina Dutta was interpreted by the Division Bench to simply imply that if a candidate possessed higher qualification than the prescribed norms, there was no bar to such candidate being appointed as an Anganwadi worker.

3. The interpretation of Rina