JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — The short question that arises in this writ petition is, if an applicant’s candidature should be rejected on the ground that she has submitted false information regarding her work experience, while submitting application for being engaged as Anganwadi worker ? 2. The petitioner applied for being engaged as the Angan¬wadi worker of Gualipari Anganwadi Centre coming under the Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “C.D.P.O.” for brevity), Satyabadi in the district of Puri. Opposite parties 4 and 5 were also applicants for the aforesaid volunteer work. After scrutinizing the applications of the appli¬cants, only three applicants were found eligible for being inter¬viewed. 3. In the meantime, opposite party no.5 filed writ peti¬tion bearing W.P.(C) No.8900 of 2006 challenging the selection of opposite party no.4. The writ petition was disposed of giving direction to the Collector, Puri to dispose of the representation filed by the said opposite party no.4 on merit within a specific time. The order was passed on 14.07.2006. 4. On such direction, the Collector, Puri initiated Angan¬wadi Workers Misc. Case No.22 of 2006. Opposite parties 4 and 5 and the petitioner were noticed. The petitioner further pleads that during enquiry conducted by the Collector, it came to the light that the experience certificates produced by the opposite parties 4 and 5 were forged. Accordingly, the Collector directed the District Social Welfare Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “DSWO” for brevity) and C.D.P.O. to verify the experience certificates and submit a report. In pursuance of such direction, an enquiry was conducted by the C.D.P.O. and D.S.W.O. In their report, these officers submitted that the experience certificates submitted by Lalita Rout (opp. party no.5) and Sasmita Pradhan (opp. party no.4) are forged documents. Such report was prepared on the basis of the letters issued by the respective organiza¬tions, who alleged to have issued the experience certificates. 5. None of the parties raised any objection whatsoever to the report submitted by the C.D.P.O. and D.S.W.O. However, while disposing of the representation filed by the opposite party no.4, the learned Collector, vide order dated 29.11.2008, in the afore¬said Misc. Cases, declared the opposite parties to be the suc¬cessful candidates for being engaged as the Anganwadi workers. 6. The petitioner claimed that the order passed by the Collector is in clear violation of the enquiry report submitted by the authorities. Cases, declared the opposite parties to be the suc¬cessful candidates for being engaged as the Anganwadi workers. 6. The petitioner claimed that the order passed by the Collector is in clear violation of the enquiry report submitted by the authorities. He further submitted that prima facie, the learned Collector has overlooked the enquiry report which cate¬gorically stated that the successful candidate has forged the experience certificate. The petitioner further claimed that when the forgery has been established, the learned Collector ought to have initiated criminal proceeding against the person concerned, but he has not done so. The petitioner further submitted that if the experience mark is added to the present petitioner, then the mark of the petitioner would be more than the marks secured by the opposite party no.4. Under such circumstance, the petitioner claimed that selec¬tion of opposite party no.4 is in clear violation of the guide¬lines and the law of the land. On such pleadings, the petitioner prays to quash the order passed by the learned Collector and to issue appropriate direc¬tion to declare the present petitioner as the successful candi¬date. 7. The State has not filed any counter affidavit. Opposite party no.4 i.e. the selected candidate filed the counter affida¬vit, inter alia, pleading that the marks obtained in Matriculation Examination is relevant for consideration of selec¬tion. Production of experience certificate is an additional qualification for consideration to the post. It is further plead¬ed that in the instant case, the Collector, who is the appellate authority, doubted the genuineness of the certificates produced by the candidates and hence did not take into consideration the experience certificates while selecting the candidates for the post. Opposite party no.4 further pleads that the Enquiring Officer found that the certificates produced by the opposite parties are not genuine. To avoid such controversy, it is pleaded by the opposite party that because production of the experience certificate was not mandatory, the Collector did not take into consideration the issue of experience certificate and decided the issue taking into the marks obtained by the candidates in the H.S.C. Examination, as yardstick in preparing the merit list. The marks secured by the contesting opposite party no.4 were the highest. Hence, she was considered as most suitable for the post. The opposite party further pleads that a person having no locus standi cannot enforce a right. The marks secured by the contesting opposite party no.4 were the highest. Hence, she was considered as most suitable for the post. The opposite party further pleads that a person having no locus standi cannot enforce a right. It is further pleaded that the petitioner not being a resident of Gualipari Anganwadi Centre area, which is one of the requirements under the guidelines, could not have challenged the appointment. The opposite party further pleads that in case no suitable candidates are found within the Anganwadi service area, the applications of residents of nearby revenue villages can be considered. No application from any other quarter would be con¬sidered as the contesting opposite party is a resident of the said Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner has admitted that she be¬longs to Markandapada, which is of a different village. The opposite party further pleads that the petitioner has no locus standi to be considered for the post till the application of opposite party no.4 is considered. 8. As per advertisement bearing No. 189 dated 24.03.2006, the C.D.P.O. invited applications from eligible candidates for being selected as Anganwadi worker of different Anganwadi Centres including that of village-Sukal. The name of Anganwadi Centre, for which the advertisement was issued, is with respect to Gualipari. In such advertisement, the C.D.P.O. stipulated that the applicant should be a permanent resident of village/new Anganwadi Centre village. In Clause 10 of the advertisement it is further stipulated that in case the applicant has experience in the fields of health, education and awareness, then the applicant should file any certificate regarding the same from any Govern¬ment, Non-Government or Registered Institutions regarding such experience. The applicants were also required to submit their applications in the prescribed format. 9. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8900 of 2006, the Collector, Puri initiated AWW Misc. Case No.22 of 2006, wherein as he was prima facie satisfied that some of the applicants have filed fake certificates, he called for a report from the D.S.W.O. and C.D.P.O., Puri. The D.S.W.O. and C.D.P.O. conducted a joint verification and submitted a report on 24.10.2007, which forms part of the impugned order. The report very clear reveals that the opposite parties Lalita Rout and Sasmita Pradhan have submitted forged certificates. The Two Member Committee, therefore, recommended that they should be punished and should not be considered for selection of Anganwadi worker. The D.S.W.O. and C.D.P.O. conducted a joint verification and submitted a report on 24.10.2007, which forms part of the impugned order. The report very clear reveals that the opposite parties Lalita Rout and Sasmita Pradhan have submitted forged certificates. The Two Member Committee, therefore, recommended that they should be punished and should not be considered for selection of Anganwadi worker. In a separate report dated 16.05.2008, the D.S.W.O. Puri further submitted that Sachala Panda, the present petitioner was engaged as Creche Worker run by Palli Sanskruti Kalaparisad, Tipuri and the experience certificate issued in her favour is genuine. While disposing of the case, the learned Collector held as follows: “Perused the joint enquiry report of D.S.W.O. and C.D.P.O., Satyabadi. It is reported that the experience certificate submit¬ted by Sasmita Pradhan from Sangrami Nari Mangal Samiti, Kanas is a forged one as revealed from its letter no.13187, dated 04.09.2007. In case of Sachala Panda, she worked as a creche worker at Jagannathpur Creche Centre for the year 1999-2000. They finally reported that both Lalita Rout and Sasmita Pradhan in¬volved in giving forged certificates should be punished and not to be considered as Anganwadi worker and Sachala Panda may be considered for the post. Also perused the enquiry report of the D.S.W.O. dated 16.05.2008 on Palli Sanskrutika Kala Parisad, the N.G.O. who issued experience certificate to Sachala Panda. It is reported that the organization was funded by National Creche Fund, New Delhi to run 5 creche centres in Kanas Block from 1.5.96 to 31.3.97 and engaged Sachala Panda as Creche worker honourarily as per decision of their Executive Body meeting dated 25.05.99 anticipating further extension of creche programme. Thus, the experience certificate of Sachala Panda as creche worker is genu¬ine. Verified the result sheet prepared for selection of Anganwadi worker of Gualipari centre. It is seen that the peti¬tioner and both the O.Ps. have secured marks as follows: Name Career mark Viva voce Experience Total mark 1. Lalita Rout 41.56 4.75 - 46.31 2. Sasmita Pradhan 40.53 7.25 2 49.78 3. Sachala Panda 39.93 6.75 1 47.68" 10. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Collector held that the selection of Sasmita Pradhan as Anganwadi worker was made on the basis of marks secured in all the phases. Lalita Rout 41.56 4.75 - 46.31 2. Sasmita Pradhan 40.53 7.25 2 49.78 3. Sachala Panda 39.93 6.75 1 47.68" 10. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Collector held that the selection of Sasmita Pradhan as Anganwadi worker was made on the basis of marks secured in all the phases. However, considering the fact that the certificates submitted by Sasmita Pradhan and Lalita Rout were forged and the certificate submitted by Sasmita Pradhan to be genuine, the Collector, Puri held that since the experience certificate produced by the candi¬dates are forged on enquiry, the same are not accepted and hence, the marks awarded on experience were deleted. The result was that the Sasmita Pradhan was found to have secured highest mark and hence, she was held eligible for the post. The approach adopted by the learned Collector, Puri is paradoxical in view of the fact that at one stage he had come to the conclusion that the experi¬ence certificate submitted by Sasmita Pradhan is not genuine and at the same time he has accepted her application. The learned Collector has not taken into consideration the declaration that has been given by the candidates in the prescribed format for application. It is noted that the candidates are required to give an undertaking at the bottom of the application that all the facts given in the application format are completely true. Thus, a candidate who has given untrue facts should not be considered for the said selection. Thus, in view of the above, the selection of Sasmita Pradhan cannot be upheld. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for opposite party no.4 that the petitioner is not a resident of the Anganwadi centre area and, therefore, her name cannot be considered for being selected as the Anganwadi worker. It is further contended that she has married in the meantime and has gone to another village to reside with her husband. This contention has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition¬er is admittedly a resident of Markanadapada, whereas the Angan¬wadi Centres were established to cater to the needs of the Guali¬pari area. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner is not the appropri¬ate candidate for being selected. In the event no suitable candi¬dates are found from the Anganwadi Centre area, a person who is not a resident of that area may be selected. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner is not the appropri¬ate candidate for being selected. In the event no suitable candi¬dates are found from the Anganwadi Centre area, a person who is not a resident of that area may be selected. This is the guide¬lines provided by the State Government with respect to selection and engagement of Anganwadi worker. The petitioner does not challenge the vires of such guidelines. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Collector, Puri in AWW Misc. Case No.22 of 2006, Annexure 6 is quashed. The selection and engagement of Sasmita Pradhan is also set aside. Since Sachala Panda is not a resident of that area, it is consid¬ered appropriate by this Court that fresh notification should be brought out with respect to the Gualipari Anganwadi Centre within a month of receipt of notice of this order. It is made further clear that in the fresh selection, the candidature of Lalita Rout and Sasmita Pradhan shall not be considered in view of the fact that they are guilty of supplying false information and relying on forged documents. Opposite party no.1 to 3 are directed to conduct a fresh exercise for selection of Anganwadi worker of the said Anganwadi Centre and complete the same within a period of two months as per the revised guideline. The petitioner is di¬rected to file the postal requisites for communication of the order to the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 within a week. Petition allowed in part.