Judgment Biswajit Mohanty, J. The present writ appeal has been filed by the selected candidate (appellant) with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C ) No.19810 of 2009. Vide order dated 3.4.2014, the Hon’ble Single Judge quashed the order dated 7.11.2009 passed by the Sub-Collector, Athagarh (Respondent No.3) in Misc. (Anganwadi) Appeal No.1 of 2009 by which Respondent No.3 has rejected the appeal filed by the unsuccessful candidate, namely, Respondent No.5, challenging the selection and appointment of the appellant as Anganwadi Worker in Village Baliput under C.D.P.O., Tigiria (Respondent No.4). After quashing, the Hon’ble Single Judge has remitted Misc. (Anganwadi) Appeal No.1 of 2009 back to Respondent No.3 for passing fresh orders. 2. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows: On 4.4.2007 Respondent No.4 issued an advertisement by inviting applications from the intending candidates for appointment as Anganwadi Worker at Baliput Anganwadi Centre. This advertisement was filed as Annexure-3 to W.P.(C) No.19810 of 2009 (in short, ‘the writ petition’). The said advertisement refers to Government guidelines dated 7.10.1998 filed as Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit of the writ petition. That counter affidavit has been filed as Annexure-5 in the writ appeal. As per the said guidelines issued by the Government under Annexure-A/4, at Para-8(e), it was made clear that maximum marks to be awarded for experience was 5. The experience relevant for the purpose would be experience in any area of the duties of Anganwadi Worker acquired in Government employment or in employment in a programme under a Registered Voluntary Organization funded by the State/Central Government for the purpose. At Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007, it was made clear that experience certificate issued by the Registered Voluntary Organizations receiving aid from Government would be taken into account. Further the certificate so issued by the Voluntary Organizations must indicate from which institution it is receiving aid, quantum of aid so received and the programme implemented/carried out by such Registered Voluntary Organizations. Such conditions/ requirements were never challenged by anyone including Respondent No.5. It appears that while putting in her application, Respondent No.5 submitted her experience certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti dated 8.1.1999. The said certificate was filed as Annexure-4 in the writ petition and as Annexure-6 in the present appeal. Such conditions/ requirements were never challenged by anyone including Respondent No.5. It appears that while putting in her application, Respondent No.5 submitted her experience certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti dated 8.1.1999. The said certificate was filed as Annexure-4 in the writ petition and as Annexure-6 in the present appeal. It appears from the writ petition that Respondent No.5 took a plea that she had supplied two experience certificates along with her application form. One is experience certificate dated 8.1.1999 referred to above and other one is experience certificate dated 4.2.2007 issued by the Social Welfare Organisation, Kalyanee. The certificate dated 4.2.2007 issued by Kalyanee was filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. However, the records do not show filing of certificate dated 4.2.2007 issued by Kalyanee along with the application of Respondent No.5. In fact, the application form of Respondent No.5 only refers to certificate covering the period from 1996 to 1999 at Non Formal Education Centre Kuanrpal. Only certificate dated 8.1.1999 issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti can be co-related with the same. Along with Respondent No.5, the appellant and many others applied for consideration of their candidatures in order to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Baliput Centre. As per records, the selection was finalized on 30.5.2008 in which the appellant was selected for securing more marks than Respondent No.5. Further from the records, it is clear that Respondent No.5 was not awarded any mark under the heading experience. Thereafter, the appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Baliput Anganwadi Centre on 27.12.2008 vide Annexure-1. Challenging the selection and the order of appointment of the appellant, Respondent no.5 filed Misc. (Anganwadi) Appeal No.1 of 2009. Such appeal of Respondent No.5 was dismissed by Respondent No.3 on 7.11.2009 vide Annexure-3 to this writ appeal. The said Annexure-3 was filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. While dismissing the appeal vide Annexure-3 attached to the present writ appeal, Respondent No.3 held that as the certificate submitted by Respondent No.5 was beyond jurisdiction of the area of duties of Anganwadi Worker, the same was not acceptable. Further, he came to a conclusion that since the appellant secured 61.51 marks whereas Respondent No.5 secured 60.55 marks, the appellant is more meritorious than Respondent No.5 and accordingly, Respondent No.3 rejected the appeal filed by Respondent No.5. 3. Challenging the order dated 7.11.2009 passed by Respondent No.3 in Misc. Further, he came to a conclusion that since the appellant secured 61.51 marks whereas Respondent No.5 secured 60.55 marks, the appellant is more meritorious than Respondent No.5 and accordingly, Respondent No.3 rejected the appeal filed by Respondent No.5. 3. Challenging the order dated 7.11.2009 passed by Respondent No.3 in Misc. (Anganwadi) Appeal No.1 of 2009, Respondent No.5 filed the writ petition mainly taking the plea that both the C.D.P.O. (Respondent No.4) and the Appellate Authority Sub-Collector, Athagarh (Respondent No.3) have committed grave illegality in not awarding marks to Respondent No.5 though she had submitted experience certificate. Respondent No.5 also took a plea that though advertisement was issued on 7.4.2007, but as the process of selection started in 2008 and the selection was required to be made as per the revised guidelines which came into force on 2.5.2007 and not under pre-revised guidelines. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 contended that both Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have committed grave illegality in holding selection as per the pre-revised guidelines. In the said writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the present writ appeal. In the said counter affidavit at Annexure-5, they took the stand that Respondent No.5 had not filed necessary documents in support of her experience certificate dated 8.1.1999 like letter of grant etc. to prove as to from whom the grant was received as required by the advertisement. All these averments were made by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Paragraph-7, 8 and 16 of the counter-affidavit under Annexure-5. Therefore, Respondent No.5 was not awarded any mark under the heading ‘experience’. Though Respondent No.5 filed a rejoinder, she only reiterated that she had filed all necessary documents in support of the experience certificate under Annexures-4 and 5 attached to the writ petition. A perusal of records do not show about filing of any document in support of the above noted experience certificate under Annexures-4 and 5 attached to the writ petition. Rather the records do not show filing of experience certificate under Annexure-5 at all. Hon’ble Single Judge referring to Paragraph-iv of the Role and Responsibilities of Anganwadi Workers came to a conclusion that the order of Respondent No.3 at Annexure-3 attached to the writ appeal suffers from perversity of non-consideration of experience. Rather the records do not show filing of experience certificate under Annexure-5 at all. Hon’ble Single Judge referring to Paragraph-iv of the Role and Responsibilities of Anganwadi Workers came to a conclusion that the order of Respondent No.3 at Annexure-3 attached to the writ appeal suffers from perversity of non-consideration of experience. As per Annexure-6 attached to this appeal, Respondent no.5 had an experience of working as non-formal instructor and as per Paragraph-iv of the Role and Responsibilities of Anganwadi Workers, Anganwadi Workers are supposed to organize non-formal pre-school activities in the Anganwadi. Accordingly, Hon’ble Single Judge came to hold that the appellate order of Respondent No.3 was not sustainable in law and accordingly, quashed the order under Annexure-3 attached to the present writ appeal and directed Respondent No.3 for passing fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made by him in the order. While passing order, Hon’ble Single Judge has also made an observation that “There is no dispute that Parbati Mahila Samiti from which the petitioner has obtained experience certificate under Annexure-4 was receiving aid from the State Government”. Challenging the order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, the appellant, who was opposite party no.5 to the writ petition, has filed the present writ appeal. 4. We heard Mr.Arun Kumar Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel and Mr. Upendra Kumar Samal, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 5. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant put special emphasis on Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007, which was filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and pointed out that as per the said Clause, an applicant who had worked in a programme under a Registered Voluntary Organisation funded by the State/Central Government was not only supposed to supply the experience certificate issued by such voluntary organization, but the said certificate should contain the following things; a) The name of institution from which the registered Voluntary Organization was receiving financial aid. b) Quantum of financial aid. c) The name of programme run by the registered Voluntary Organization. According to Mr. Acharya, the certificate dated 8.1.1999 issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti (Annexure-4 attached to the writ petition/Annexure-6 attached to the writ appeal) did not show the quantum of financial aid received by Parbati Mahila Samiti. b) Quantum of financial aid. c) The name of programme run by the registered Voluntary Organization. According to Mr. Acharya, the certificate dated 8.1.1999 issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti (Annexure-4 attached to the writ petition/Annexure-6 attached to the writ appeal) did not show the quantum of financial aid received by Parbati Mahila Samiti. Further according to him, even the certificate issued by Kalyani, which was attached as Annexure-5 to the writ petition was totally silent on the factum of financial aid received from Government as required under Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007. Advancing his argument, further, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their counter affidavit to the writ petition, (which has been filed as Annexure-5 in the present writ appeal) also had pointed out the deficiencies of the experience certificate submitted by Respondent No.5 and disputed its acceptability and accordingly they took the plea they had rightly rejected the certificate. According to Mr.Acharya, Respondent No.5 also had not submitted necessary documents like letter of grant issued by the appropriate authority in order to prove the quantum of financial grant so received as required under the advertisement. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 was not rightly awarded any mark under the heading experience. Despite this, Hon’ble Single Judge ignored all these and came to a wrong finding that there was no dispute that Parbati Mahila Samiti from which Respondent No.5 had obtained experience certificate under Annexure-6 attached to the writ appeal, was receiving aid from the State Government. Thus, according to him the certificate submitted by Respondent No.5 was deficient vis-à-vis the requirement of Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007. Further according to Mr. Acharya in Annexure-6, there was also no whisper about any State Government funding. Had the Hon’ble Single Judge applied his judicial mind to this aspect of the matter, he would have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Respondent No.5 failed to satisfy the requirements of Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007, which were never challenged by Respondent No.5. 6. Mr. Muduli, learned Addl. Had the Hon’ble Single Judge applied his judicial mind to this aspect of the matter, he would have dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Respondent No.5 failed to satisfy the requirements of Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007, which were never challenged by Respondent No.5. 6. Mr. Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel also put emphasis on Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007 and on the basis of records argued that the experience certificate submitted by Respondent No.5 never satisfied the requirements of Clause-4 of the advertisement nor did Respondent No.5 submit the necessary documents like letter of grant in favour of Parbati Mahila Samiti showing quantum of aid. With regard to the certificate issued by Kalyanee, relying on records, he submitted that such certificate was never submitted by Respondent No.5 while putting in her application. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Samal, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that the points raised by the appellant are new points which were not taken earlier. Therefore, he should not be allowed to raise all these new points. According to him, the appellant could not be permitted to raise question as to the genuineness of Annexure-6 i.e., experience certificate of Respondent No.5 at this stage. Lastly, Mr. Samal strongly defended the order of Hon’ble Single Judge contending that since Respondent No.3 dismissed her Misc. (Anganwadi) Appeal No.1 of 2009 by wrongly refusing to accept the experience certificate submitted by her on the ground that the area of duties covered by that certificate was beyond the jurisdiction of the area of duties of Anganwadi Worker, such order of Respondent No.3 was rightly set aside, relying on Paragrapg-iv of the Role and Responsibilities of Anganwadi Worker. Thus Hon’ble Single Judge had committed no illegality and in such background, the writ appeal be dismissed. 8. In such background, let us examine whether the Hon’ble Single Judge has correctly passed the impugned order dated 3.4.2014. From the above noted submissions as well as perusal of records one thing is clear that Respondent No.5 along with her application only supplied the certificate dated 8.1.1999 issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti not the experience certificate issued by Kalyanee. 8. In such background, let us examine whether the Hon’ble Single Judge has correctly passed the impugned order dated 3.4.2014. From the above noted submissions as well as perusal of records one thing is clear that Respondent No.5 along with her application only supplied the certificate dated 8.1.1999 issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti not the experience certificate issued by Kalyanee. Now even if only 1 mark is given to Respondent No.5 under the heading experience taking into account the certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti, then Respondent No.5 will secure 61.55 marks in contrast to 61.51 marks secured by the appellant and would be selected. Therefore, the crux of the matter revolves around the acceptability of certificate dated 8.1.1999 issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti, which was filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition and as Annexure-6 to the writ appeal. From the advertisement dated 4.4.2007, it is clear that a candidate working under a Voluntary Organisation was required to supply experience certificate showing the following three things; i) the institution from which the Voluntary Organization is receiving Government financial aid. ii) the quantum of Government financial aid. iii) the name of programme conducted by such Registered Voluntary Organisation. A perusal of the certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.5 at Annexure-6, which Respondent No.5 filed along with her application would show that the said certificate is deficient as it does not indicate the quantum of Government financial aid as required under Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007. A perusal of records also does not show any supporting letter of grant showing quantum of Government financial assistance/aid to Parbati Mahila Samiti as supplied by Respondent No.5. A perusal of counter affidavit under Annexure-5 clearly shows that several objections were taken by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Paragraphs-7, 8 and 16 with regard to acceptability of the certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti. To this, though at Paragraph7 of the rejoinder, it was averred by Respondent No.5 that all necessary documents in support of the experience certificate were filed by her, however, a perusal of the records do not reveal existence of such documents in support of experience certificate under Annexure-6. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent No.5 never submitted the certificate as required under Clause-4 of the advertisement. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent No.5 never submitted the certificate as required under Clause-4 of the advertisement. Despite Respondent Nos.3 and 4 raising various objections with regard to experience certificate of Respondent No.5 as indicated earlier, Hon’ble Single Judge has not addressed himself to this issue. Rather with great respect we may say that an incorrect observation has been made in the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 that there was no dispute as to the experience certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti. Hon’ble Single Judge has also referred to the experience certificate of Parbati Mahila Samiti as one showing as receiving aid from the State Government. In fact, the certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti at Annexure-6 does not refer to any aid from the State Government at all. Since Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have raised dispute/objection relating to acceptability of the certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti before the Hon’ble Single Judge, under such circumstances, it cannot be said that while highlighting the same, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant has raised any new points before this Court. It was the submission of Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant that such certificate did not satisfy the requirements of Clause-4 of Advertisement dated 4.4.2007 and thus was rightly rejected. We agree with the Hon’ble Single Judge on his finding that the ground of rejecting the experience certificate on the basis that the same was beyond the area of duties of Anganwadi Worker to be not correct. However, at the same time, the Hon’ble Single Judge as indicated earlier was not correct in not addressing himself to the objections raised by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in their counter affidavit with regard to acceptability of the experience certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti by saying that there was no dispute on the same. Though, at one point of time we were toying with the idea of remanding the matter to the Hon’ble Single Judge however in view of clear cut materials on record and in order to give a quietus to the matter, we hold that since the certificate issued by Parbati Mahila Samiti did not satisfy the requirements of Clause-4 of the advertisement dated 4.4.2007, her certificate was rightly ignored by Respondent No.4 by not awarding any marks under the heading experience. For this reason, writ appeal is allowed and the judgment impugned herein is set aside. For this reason, writ appeal is allowed and the judgment impugned herein is set aside. No costs.