Non-appearance of the top-ranked candidate at the Aam Sabha justifies the selection of the next-ranked candidate.

The petitioner applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Centre No. 236 under Dhanav Mubarakpur Panchayat in 2012. She was ranked No. 1 in the merit list with 73.42% marks

An Aam Sabha (public meeting) for final selection was convened on 23.12.2013, but the petitioner failed to attend, citing her daughter’s medical treatment

In her absence, the selection committee appointed Respondent No. 7, who was ranked No. 2 in the merit list

The petitioner challenged the appointment, alleging lack of notice for the meeting and claiming that a previously scheduled meeting on 22.12.2013 was deliberately cancelled to defeat her claim

Although the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) directed a fresh selection process, the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) did not comply

1. Whether the selection of the second-ranked candidate in the merit list was legally valid in the absence of the first-ranked candidate during the Aam Sabha

2. Whether the direction issued by the SDO to reconvene the selection process was binding upon the appointing authorities under the relevant guidelines

The court applied the Anganbari Sevika Chayan Margdarshika (Selection Guidelines) of 2011, specifically Clauses 8.4 and 8.5, which govern the procedure for appointment when a candidate is absent, and Clause 10, which vests the District Programme Officer (DPO) with the power to cancel or appoint Sevikas

The court also noted Rule 6.9 regarding the timeline for final selection after the publication of the merit list

The court found that although the petitioner held higher marks, her absence from the Aam Sabha on 23.12.2013 was a material fact that justified the committee moving to the next candidate

The State’s records indicated that notice was communicated through the Ward Member and Supervisor, and that the meeting was held following a prior failure to meet the quorum

The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the SDO’s direction for a fresh selection, noting that the SDO lacked the statutory authority under Clause 10 of the Guidelines to pass such orders; only the DPO held such jurisdiction

Consequently, the selection committee acted within the procedural framework of the 2011 Guidelines by considering the next eligible candidate in the merit list when the topper was unavailable

The selection of Respondent No. 7 (the second-ranked candidate) was deemed valid under the governing rules. The Writ Petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of