The court emphasized the importance of interpreting and applying the provisions of the resolution accurately and justly in the context of appointment decisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned AGP, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw and learned advocate Ms.Solanki waive service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of challenging the action of the respondent authorities appointing the respondent No.4 on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Chandana Muvada Anganwadi, Taluka Dehgam, District Gandhinagar, instead of the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that though she is having more merits than the respondent No.4, no appointment order has been issued in her favour.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Prasad appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner inquired about her non-appointment and the appointment of the respondent No.3 was issued by the respondent authority by communication dated 20.10.2020, she was informed that her application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker has not been approved as she has only produced the Semester mark-sheet of the Diploma course, which was not required or called for as per the advertisement. He has submitted that in fact, the petitioner had honestly filled in the form of her educational qualification stating that she has passed Standard XII and Semester-I and Semester-II of the Diploma Course and accordingly, uploaded her documents. It is submitted that the resolution of the State Government dated 25.11.2019 provides for mentioning of the educational qualification and accordingly, she has filled in the same. He has submitted that the resolution nowhere provides that in case of non-holding of the Diploma Course, the candidates have to mention in the application form that they are not holding the Diploma.

5. Reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr.Prasad on paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019. He has submitted that as per the provision of paragraph No.3.5 of the resolution, the candidate, who is seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker should possess minimum qualification of Standard XII or Standard X and Diploma of 02 years obtained from AICTE approved Institution. It is submitted that the petitioner was having minimum qualification of Standard XII and accordingly, she has filled in the application form. He has submitted that the merit-list prepared on 22.09.2020 indicates that the petitioner is far more meritorious than the respondent No.4, who is having only 22.54 merit score, whereas the petitioner is having 40.17 merit score and her educational score is also more than the respondent No.4. Thus, it is urged that the appointment of the respondent No.4 is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi worker.

6. While placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondent authority, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the online application of the petitioner was not filled in by giving the requisite information and, when it was noticed that the petitioner was not having qualification of Diploma or graduation and the mark-sheet of the relevant course was not annexed on account of such misleading information, her application was rejected and hence, she was not offered the appointment. He has submitted that the petitioner was having only mark-sheet of Semester I and Semester II of the Diploma Course undertaken after Standard XII and since she is not having the Diploma Certificate, her application for the appointment on the post of Anganwadi worker was rejected. Thus, it is submitted that in view of provision of paragraph No.7.6 of the resolution dated 25.11.2019, the respondent No.4 has been appropriately appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker.

7. Learned advocate Ms.Solanki appearing for the respondent No.4 has adopted the arguments advanced by