JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J - By filing this writ appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge the order dated 9.7.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4469 of 2013. 2. Facts as borne out from the writ appeal are that pursuant to a notification for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Talatala (Nuasahi) Anganwadi Centre published vide Advertisement No. 501 dated 14.12.2009 inviting applications from the intending candidates, the present appellant along with respondent No. 4 and two others applied for the said post. In the consideration process, it was found that the appellant is a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre and having secured highest mark amongst the candidates eligible for the Anganwadi Centre, vide Order No. 525 dated 18.9.2010, she was given an offer of appointment as Anganwadi Worker. While the appellant was continuing as such, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal bearing Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 51 of 2010. The appellant contended that respondent No. 4 is not a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area and thus was not eligible for being considered for the post and dismissed the Appeal. As against the order of dismissal of the Appeal, respondent No. 4 filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 4469 of 2013, which was disposed by the impugned order dated 9.7.2015, thereby reversing the order passed by the appellate authority giving rise to the present writ appeal. The appellant has contended that looking to the provisions contained in the advertisement and the subsequent guidelines in the matter of residence of a candidate, the appellant deserved to be considered and the respondent No. 4 has no case for the reason that she was not a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. The appellant has alleged that the impugned order is not only contrary to the material available on record but also without due consideration of the observation of the Selection Committee as well as the appellate authority, particularly, in the matter of residence of the candidates. The respondent No. 4 on her appearance, on the other hand, submitted that she along with other candidates submitted their applications against the advertisement. Out of 4 (four) candidates, the application of one Mira Pradhan was rejected for her remaining absent at the time of verification of the documents. The respondent No. 4 on her appearance, on the other hand, submitted that she along with other candidates submitted their applications against the advertisement. Out of 4 (four) candidates, the application of one Mira Pradhan was rejected for her remaining absent at the time of verification of the documents. Out of the remaining 3 (three) candidates, she not only secured highest marks i.e. 58.07% but she was also found to be belonging to the Anganwadi Centre area. In spite of materials available indicating the respondent No. 4 belongs to the Anganwadi Centre area, her appeal was illegally rejected. Therefore, this matter has been reconsidered and the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly reversed the order of the appellate authority. Respondent No. 4 thus claimed that there is no illegality in the impugned order leaving any scope for the Division Bench to interfere with the same. 3. The advertisement calling for applications from the intending candidates for appointment as Anganwadi Workers vide Annexure-2 contains the following relevant required information for the post of Anganwadi Workers. (i) The candidate must be a permanent resident of the concerned Centre. Further, the list of Additional Anganwadi Worker Centres appended to the advertisement vide Annexure-2 recites the following. 4. This advertisement was published on 14.12.2009 requiring applications from the candidates of the concerned area, undoubtedly relates to Anganwadi Centre area and from the above information it is amply clear that the Anganwadi Centre area no doubt is part of Purunasahi and that too from the house of Chakrapani Biswal up to the house of Sundari Bewa. Now looking to the guidelines appended to the Writ Appeal, the guideline dated 2.5.2007 issued by the Government of Orissa in Women & Child Development Department, in supersession of all previous guidelines/orders in the said regard, clearly contains as follows: "(i) Applications for selection of vacancies to work as Anganwadi Workers will be invited for each village/Anganwadi Centre area from women residing in the said village/Anganwadi Centre area." Similarly, the guideline brought out by the Government of Orissa on 1.3.2008 contains the following: "(1) According to paragraph-1 of the revised guidelines, the Anganwadi Worker should be a resident of the Anganwadi Worker Centre area. If no suitable candidate is available in the Anganwadi Worker Centre area, then candidates of the village could be considered." 5. If no suitable candidate is available in the Anganwadi Worker Centre area, then candidates of the village could be considered." 5. Reading of the above two provisions make it clear that the Government has the clear intention to pick up an Anganwadi Worker firstly from the Anganwadi Centre area and in the event no such candidate is available in the Anganwadi Centre area, then a candidate can be considered from the concerned village. Now coming back to the case at hand, since the Item No. 21 of the advertisement required Anganwadi Worker for Nuasahi (Talatala) Anganwadi Centre, part of Purunasahi, particularly in between the house of Chakrapani Biswal up to the house of Sundari Bewa, residence of the candidates must fall in the Anganwadi Centre area i.e. in between the house of Chakrapani Biswal and the house of Sundari Bewa and in the event no candidate is available in the Centre Area then depending on the order of the Government of Orissa dated 1.3.2008, a candidate could be considered from the village of Purunasahi. In view of the above specific dispute, the question now emerges for just decision in this matter is as to whether both the present appellant and respondent No. 4 belongs to Anganwadi Centre area having residence between the House of Chakrapani Biswal and the house of Sundari Bewa? 6. The appellate authority in considering the appeal at the instance of Manini Biswal has relied upon several documents disclosing the position of the house of both candidates, namely, Manini Biswal as well as Sanjukta Behera, the main contestants in the present Writ Appeal. It appears that a Tahasildar report clearly indicated as follows: "Though Smt. Manini Biswal has secured 58.7% marks but since she is not staying in the centre zone as per the report received from the Tahasildar, Krushnaprasad therefore, her application was not taken into consideration." 7. In scanning the position of houses of the appellant as well as respondent No. 4, on verification of voter list at Serial No. 28 mentioning name of Chakrapani Biswal up to Serial No. 674 mentioning name of Sundari Bewa, the lower appellate court found the name of the present appellant i.e house of Sanjukta Behera available at Serial No. 107 whereas name of Manini Biswal, respondent No. 4 is at serial No. 694. Therefore, the lower appellate court observed that name of Manini Biswal appeared to be beyond the house of Sundari Bewa. Similarly on scanning the house list of Taltal Nuasahi, a copy supplied by C.D.P.O, Krushnaprasad vide correspondence No. 633 dated 16.11.2010, the lower appellate court found the list so filed to be misleading. House number of Sundari Bewa finds place at Sl. No. 122 and the house of Chakrapani Biswal finds place at Sl. No. 124 and then there could be total three houses including the house of Sundari Bewa and Chakrapani Biswal so far as it relates to Anganwadi Center area. From the above, it is amply clear that neither the appellant nor the respondent No. 4 is a resident of the Anganwadi Center area. However, both of them belong to one village. Hence, the question formed hereinabove is answered in the negative. 8. Now coming back to the Circular/Guidelines operating in the field in the matter of selection of Anganwadi Workers dated 02.5.2007 as well as 01.3.2008, reading of the above it becomes clear that if no suitable candidate is available in the Anganwadi Center area, then candidates of the particular village ought to be considered. This Court herein above has already observed that neither of the candidates belong to the Anganwadi Center area. However, since both of them belong to the particular village, relevant factor for considering the candidature for the post is to take their scoring in the interview/examination held for the purpose of selection. There is no denial to the fact that the respondent No. 4 scored more than the present appellant and hence respondent No. 4 ought to have been selected as the Anganwadi Worker. 9. We find from the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge that though it is not elaborately discussed, it is held that both the appellant as well as respondent No. 4 belong to one village and the respondent No. 4's case could not have been ignored on account of her higher score. There is nothing wrong in the ultimate decision in holding respondent No. 4 to be rightly declared as the selected candidate. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4469 of 2013 and we hereby confirm the same. 10. Thus, the Writ Appeal has no merit and the same stands dismissed. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4469 of 2013 and we hereby confirm the same. 10. Thus, the Writ Appeal has no merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Dismissed