Authorities must assess Anganwadi-helper eligibility using the qualification documents actually submitted.

The petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied for an Anganwadi Helper post at Vibhuthihalli Anganwadi Centre No. 2.

The authorities recorded that the petitioner’s 9th-standard marks card was fake, based on information from the Education Department, and rejected her application.

The petitioner contended that she had not produced that marks card and had produced a 4th-standard marks card, which met the qualification in the guidelines dated 23 September 2017.

She challenged the selection committee’s resolution and the consequential endorsement under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

Whether the authorities could reject the petitioner’s application on the basis that her 9th-standard marks card was fake, when she disputed having produced it and relied on a 4th-standard marks card

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for appointment, or whether her application should be reconsidered by the authorities

The guidelines dated 23 September 2017 prescribed the educational qualification for an Anganwadi Helper as between 4th and 9th standard; the authority was therefore required to consider the applicant’s qualifying educational document and determine its genuineness in accordance with those guidelines

The Court referred to Articles 226 and 227 as the basis for the writ petition, but cited no statute or judicial precedent as the substantive rule governing the qualification

The Court found that the authorities had focused on the alleged falsity of a 9th-standard marks card, although the petitioner maintained that she had not submitted it and had produced a 4th-standard marks card.

Since the applicable guidelines set the qualification range at 4th to 9th standard, the authorities should have considered the 4th-standard document and verified its genuineness rather than treating the alleged 9th-standard document as determinative

The Court did not itself determine the document’s genuineness or direct immediate appointment; it left those matters for reconsideration by the authorities

It remitted the petitioner’s application to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for reconsideration in accordance with law and the Court’s observations, directing completion within four months of receipt of the order.

No order was made as to costs