JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - The Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the legality of order dated 31.3.2010 passed by Sub-Collector, Pallahara in Misc. Appeal Case No. 7 of 2009. 2. Pursuant to advertisement dated 12.2.2009 issued by the opposite party No. 3-C.D.P.O., Pallahara Petitioner, opposite party No. 4 and another submitted applications along with requisite documents for engagement as Anganwadi Worker ( for short 'A.W.W.') of Barakalapal Dangamanga Anganwadi Centre (for short, 'A.W.C.') of Pallahara block in the district of Angul. After verification of applications and documents, candidature of opposite party No. 4 and the Petitioner only were found to be valid. Accordingly, notification dated 8.6.2009 was issued notifying names of applicants and inviting objections. In response to the notification, objection was received against candidature of the Petitioner on the ground that she is a resident of village Godaramunda which is not included within the operational area of the A.W.C. An enquiry was conducted on the objection and report was submitted to the opposite party No. 1-Sub-Collector, Pallahara for information and necessary action. Considering the relevant merits of the two candidates and report of the Committee, Petitioner was engaged as A.W.W. by order dated 9.10.2009 which was assailed by the opposite party No. 4 in Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2009 impleading the Petitioner as opposite party No. 2 mainly on the ground that she does not reside within the service area of Barakalapal Dangamanga A.W.C.. By the impugned order Petitioner's selection as A.W.W. was declared void. Operative portion of the impugned order reads: xxx Hence, the selection of O.P. No. 2 is hereby declared void. CDPO, Pallahara is directed to take suitable action for cancellation of the order of engagement of O.P. No. 2 Smt. Anjali Pradhan as Anganwadi Worker of Barakalapal A.W. Centre and engagement of the new Anganwadi Worker to the next candidate in order of merit after observing all formalities. The Tehsildar, Pallahara is directed to take necessary step for cancellation of the resident certificate of O.P. No. 2 issued in her favour under due formalities. Informed all concerned. 3. It is obvious from the impugned order that Petitioner's engagement as A.W.W. was cancelled on the ground that she is not a resident of the operational area of A.W.C. though she had obtained residential certificate as a resident of Barakalpal. 4. Informed all concerned. 3. It is obvious from the impugned order that Petitioner's engagement as A.W.W. was cancelled on the ground that she is not a resident of the operational area of A.W.C. though she had obtained residential certificate as a resident of Barakalpal. 4. Though in assailing the impugned judgment learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised contentions against finding of fact recorded by the Sub-Collector to the effect that the Petitioner is not a resident within the operational area of the A.W.C., it is not found appropriate to enter into the factual controversy in view of another contention relating to the vital question of jurisdiction of Sub-Collector in passing the impugned order. 5. It was contended that during the period of selection of the Petitioner as A.W.W. guidelines dated 2.5.2007 issued by the Government of Orissa was in force. As per the guidelines 15 days time was to be given to the candidates to submit applications for engagement. On the 16th day applications and documents were required to be verified upon which another 7 days time was to be given for filing of objection, if any, by the community on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate submitted by the candidates. On expiry of the period of filing objection, Selection Committee was given 7 days time to verify the objections after which Selection Committee was required to notify names of candidates selected on the same day. 6. Clause (g) of the guidelines provided that in case the Chairman of the Selection Committee does not finalize the list within the stipulated time, the same will be put up to Sub-Collector for approval in case of rural projects. Clause (i) of the guidelines provided that the Collector shall be the appellate authority in case Sub-Collector/ADM have approved the selection. 7. Upon reference to the above provisions in the guidelines and report of the Enquiry Committee at Annexure-3 it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the present case it was the Sub-Collector who had approved the selection of the Petitioner as A.W.W. Therefore, Sub-Collector could not have entertained the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 4. The impugned order has been passed in contravention of the guidelines. The impugned order has been passed in contravention of the guidelines. It was further contended that, guidelines apart, the Sub-Collector having himself participated in the decision making process of the selection, entertainment of appeal by him renders the impugned order tainted with bias. 8. In course of hearing learned Counsel for the State produced the file relating to the selection of A.W.W. which also indicated that the enquiry report on the objection against the Petitioner was submitted to the Sub-Collector, Pallahara for information and necessary action. 9. Neither learned Counsel for the State appearing for the opposite parties 1 to 3 nor learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 4 disputed the factual contention that Sub-Collector had approved Petitioner's selection as A.W.W. 10. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 submitted that no bias can be attributed to the Sub-Collector. Though he had approved selection of the Petitioner, he has passed a reasoned order concluding that the Petitioner does not belong to the operational area of A.W.C. though she had managed to obtain certificate indicating that she belongs to village Barakalapal. 11. Matters relating to recruitment of A.W.W. is not covered by any statute. Engagements are made pursuant to the scheme framed by the Central Government. The State Government have issued guidelines from time to time and prescribed procedures for selection of A.W.W. Guidelines dated 2.5.2007 provided that when selection of A.W.W. has been approved by the Sub-Collector, it is the Collector who shall be the competent authority to hear appeal against selection. 12. It is well settled principle that if a thing is required to be done in a particular way it should be done in that way or it should not be done at all. Other methods of performance are impliedly or necessarily forbidden. 13. Moreover, two well settled principles of the doctrine of bias that applies equally to judicial as well as quasi-judicial tribunals are, (1) that no man shall be a judge in his own cause and that (2) justice should not merely be done but must also appear to be done. The deciding authority must be impartial and without bias. A predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. In this context, decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao etc. Vs. The deciding authority must be impartial and without bias. A predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. In this context, decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao etc. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, ; Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, ; J. Mohapatra and Co. and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Another, and Mineral Development Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, may be referred to. 14. Therefore, the Sub-Collector had not authority to entertain the appeal in which selection of the Petitioner as A.W.W. was assailed. Exercise of the authority by the Sub-Collector is in contravention of the guidelines and against the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is not sustainable. 15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Opposite party No. 4 is at liberty to file appeal before the competent authority in which event the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal on merit after giving opportunities to the parties of being heard without being influenced by any observation made by the Sub-Collector in the impugned order. Final Result : Allowed