Bonus marks in Anganwadi selection require strict proof of eligibility under the governing circular.

The appellant challenged the order dated 18.06.2026 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 17 as Anganbadi Assistant at Anganbadi Centre No. 3, Lakhram

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.09.2022, applications were invited for Anganbadi Worker and Anganbadi Assistant posts, with selection to be conducted under the circular dated 02.04.2008 issued by the Women and Child Development Department

The appellant secured 48.60% marks, while respondent No. 17 secured 49.60% marks

The appellant claimed six bonus marks for belonging to a Below Poverty Line (BPL) family and three bonus marks for having studied in an institution allegedly run by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department. She contended that these marks would have placed her above respondent No. 17 in the merit list

She further challenged the appointment order dated 03.05.2023 on the ground that it had been issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction

The State opposed the appeal, contending that the appellant had not produced the prescribed documents establishing either her BPL status or her entitlement based on the specified educational qualification

Whether the appellant established her entitlement to six bonus marks for belonging to the BPL category under the circular dated 02.04.2008?

Whether the appellant was entitled to three bonus marks for having passed Middle School from an institution contemplated under the circular dated 02.04.2008?

Whether the appointment order dated 03.05.2023 was invalid because it was issued by respondent No. 7, allegedly lacking jurisdiction?

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition, warranting interference in the intra-Court appeal?

The Court applied the circular dated 02.04.2008, under which six bonus marks were available to female candidates belonging to the BPL category and three bonus marks to candidates who had passed Middle School from a Kanya Ashram run by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Department; entitlement had to be established through the prescribed supporting documents and procedure

The Court further applied the principle that, in an intra-Court appeal, interference with a Single Judge’s order is warranted only where the order suffers from an error of law, perversity, or failure to consider material aspects of the case

It also applied the principle that a consequential appointment order cannot be treated as void merely because it was issued by a particular authority when the underlying selection had been completed and there was no material showing that the competent Selection Committee or Janpad Panchayat had not approved the select list

The Court held that the appellant had not enclosed any document with her application establishing her BPL status. The subsequently produced certificate issued by the Sarpanch did not prove entitlement to the six bonus marks, and the authorities’ tabular chart supported this conclusion

With respect to the educational bonus, the documents merely showed that the appellant had passed Class VIII from a school run by the Tribal Department; they did not establish that she had passed Middle School from the specific Kanya Ashram contemplated by the circular

The Court also noted that the appellant had not raised the claim for the three educational bonus marks at the appropriate stage while submitting objections on 22.02.2023

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that the selection authorities had wrongly denied either category of bonus marks

On the jurisdictional objection, the Court found that no material demonstrated that the select list lacked approval by the competent Selection Committee or Janpad Panchayat, Bilha. Therefore, the issuance of the consequential appointment order by respondent No. 7, by itself, did not invalidate the appointment

Since the Single Judge had considered the circular, the relevant documents, the bonus-mark claims, and the jurisdictional objection, no perversity or legal error was shown

The learned Single Judge’s order dated 18.06.2026 dismissing WPS No. 7565 of 2023 was found neither perverse nor contrary to law. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, the Single Judge’s order was affirmed, and no order as to costs was made