JUDGMENT The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2014 passed in W.P. (C) No. 19637 of 2013. We have heard Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant. The facts in brief necessary to be noted are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 1.5.2012, issued by the C.D.P.O. Tihidi initiating a process for appointment of Anganwadi Worker for Chhabispada-I Anganwadi Centre in the district of Bhadrak, the present appellant and the respondent No.6, amongst others, did offer their candidature. The final date for verification of the documents of the applicants was fixed on 6.9.2012. According to the appellant none other than herself did personally appear before the C.D.P.O., Tihidi on that date with the original documents for verification. She further has alleged that the C.D.P.O., Tihidi inserted the name of the respondent No.6 in the attendance sheet later to demonstrate that she was also present on the said date. The said authority completed the verification process after a time lag of 15 days and laid the matter before the Selection Committee, which recommended the name of respondent No.6 for appointment. Accordingly, the C.D.P.O., Tihidi issued the engagement order in her favour on 8.2.2013. The appellant, preferred an appeal being Anganwadi Appeal No.20 of 2013 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak. The appellate authority by his decision dated 23.07.2013, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the official record, dismissed the appeal. In coming to the conclusion, the appellate authority recorded the finding, on the basis of the materials available, that on the date of verification i.e. 6.9.2012, due to illness, the respondent No.6 had authorised her father-in-law to produce the certificates before the C.D.P.O., Tihidi for verification and that the C.D.P.O., Tihidi on completion of the exercise, found that the original certificates/documents of respondent No.6 to be genuine and accordingly matter was placed before the Selection Committee. The appellate authority in this regard also referred to the guidelines issued by the Government in Women and Child Development Department contained in the letter No. 145/SWCD in May, 2007 and held that in terms of point No.7 of the said guidelines, in case any applicant was rendered unable to appear in person for illness or for other inconvenient circumstances, no deterrent action in terms thereof was stipulated to ensue. The decision dated 23.07.2013 has been unsuccessfully assailed by the appellant before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 19637 of 2013. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated that as the respondent No.6 had not appeared in person on 6.9.2012, to produce her original certificate/documents for verification and that the C.D.P.O., Tihidi had unduly favoured her in violation of the relevant guidelines, the learned ADM, Bhadrak as well as the learned Single Judge had fallen in gross error in declining to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Worker in Chhabispada-I Anganwadi Centre. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a scrutiny of the recorded facts and the documents available, we are unable to sustain the challenge. As it appears from the decision dated 23.07.2013 of the ADM, Bhadrak as well as the impugned judgment and order, both the forums have in categorical terms held that o n 6.9.2012, the respondent No.6 being unwell had authorized her father-in-law to produce her original certificates/documents before the C.D.P.O., Tihidi and that on due inspection thereof, her case was recommended for appointment as Anganwadi Worker of Chhabispada-I Anganwadi Centre. The concurrent findings to the effect that by permitting the father-in-law by the respondent No.6 to be present in the verification process, relevant guidelines had not been breached, cannot also be faulted with. No other plea has been taken on behalf of the appellant in the instant appeal. In the above view of the matter, we are of the unhesitant opinion that neither the impugned judgment and order rendered in W.P. (C) No. 19637 of 2013 nor the decision dated 23.07.2013 recorded by the learned ADM, Bhadrak in A.W. Appeal No. 20 of 2013, warrant interference in the instant appeal. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.