JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged part of the order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Director, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Orissa. Brief facts of the case that the petitioner in terms of the advertisement published on the basis of the guideline in vogue but a fresh selection process was initiated on the basis of the revised guideline which according to the petitioner is contrary to law because the moment the advertisement has been issued, the selection process is supposed to be concluded on the basis of the old guideline in operative but the authorities have decided to initiate a fresh selection process on the basis of the new guideline. Contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner had participated in the process and on the basis of the said selection petitioner was placed at serial no.1 while private opposite party no.4 was found at serial no.2. On the basis of the performance in interview which was held on 6.6.2006, result was declared and final marks-sheets was sent to the Zilla Parishad, Puri. Zilla Parishad, Puri has approved the list of 16 candidates out of 19 candidates sent by the C.D.P.O., Nimapara on 29.6.2006, in pursuance of the approval of the candidates by the Zilla Parishad, Puri appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the C.D.P.O., Nimapara vide order dated 14.11.2006 and after joining in terms of the appointment letter petitioner was sent on training from 19.1.2007 to 17.2.2007 which the petitioner has successfully concluded and after completion of the training the petitioner worked as Anganwadi Worker and also received her salary but in the meanwhile the private opposite party no.4 has challenged the selection of the petitioner by way of preferring a writ petition being W.P.C. No.10052 of 2006 challenging engagement of the petitioner on the ground that the certificate of experience furnished by the petitioner is forge one, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.8.2006 directing opposite party no.6 (opposite party no.4 in this writ petition) to file representation before the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department who will dispose of the same giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The opposite party no.4 approached before the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department which was disposed of directing the concerned Collector to calculate the marks ignoring the marks awarded for experience to the petitioner. The opposite party no.4 approached before the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department which was disposed of directing the concerned Collector to calculate the marks ignoring the marks awarded for experience to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of the Director has filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3250 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 1.9.2008 remanding the matter before the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department for passing a fresh order. The Director, Women & Child Welfare Department has passed an order afresh but based upon the new guideline (Annexure-12) which is impugned in this writ petition. Ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the selection process once started solely based upon the rules/regulations/guideline which was prevalent at that time of issuance of advertisement and if in the meanwhile a new guideline has come, selection process will not be governed on the basis of the new guideline, the Director while disposing of the same, stating therein that since the Department has changed the guideline where marks of experience will not be considered any more, hence it has been directed not to give weightage of marks on account of experience having with the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-State has submitted that the Director has passed the order keeping in mind the new guideline on the day when the decision was taken by the authority, hence there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Director in Annexure-12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Fact which is not in dispute is that the selection process was initiated in which petitioner having successful, was engaged but in one pretext or the other engagement order of the petitioner was challenged by the private opposite party no.4 which led to initiation of a proceeding for adjudicating the dispute and ultimately the matter was placed before the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department pursuant to the order passed by this Court, but in the meanwhile new guideline has come which provides not to give any weightage of marks on account of experience having held by candidate while on earlier guideline there was provision to provide weightage on the basis of the experience if having with the candidate. The petitioner admittedly was engaged on the basis of the guideline which was operative on the date when the advertisement was issued and on the basis of experience marks of experience having with the petitioner, but however, her appointment was challenged regarding submission of forge experience certificate by the private opposite party and the matter has been sent before the authority to decide afresh by this Court in the order passed under the writ jurisdiction, but in the meanwhile, a new guideline has been promulgated where there is no provision of giving weightage of marks on account of experience having with the candidate. The issue which was raised by the private opposite party was regarding genuineness of experience certificate and on that ground the matter was remanded before the authority concerned but such issue has not been decided, rather the issue has been deviated on the not giving weightage marks on the basis of experience having with the candidate and accordingly direction has been given to the opposite parties regarding holding of interview afresh. It is settled principles of law that selection process was initiated solely on the basis of rules prevalent at the time of issuance of advertisement and policy if changed in the midway of the selection cannot govern selection process as has already been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonia –vs-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 627 wherein at paragraph-10 it has been held: “In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission this Court held that where selection process has been initiated by issuing an advertisement inviting applications, selection should normally be regulated by the rule or order then prevalent and also when advertisement expressly states that the appointment shall be made in accordance with the existing rule or order, subsequent amendment in the existing rule or order will not affect the pending selection process unless contrary intention is expressly or impliedly indicated.” Here, in this case since the petitioner has been selected and started discharging her duty on the basis of the weightage having experience with the petitioner, but instead of deciding the issued the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department has deferred the issue and gone into the case to the new guideline where provision of awarding extra marks is no more a provision. In that view of the matter and on the basis of the reasons made above, the part of the order by which fresh interview has been directed to be conducted is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted before the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department to take a decision regarding genuineness of experience certificate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to that while passing the order the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department shall provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the private opposite party no.4 and pass a reasoned order. The outcome of the decision of the Director, Women & Child Welfare Department will follow further action by the competent authority regarding engagement of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.