JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. - 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dtd. 5.1.2016 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Nuapada is before this court. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as has been pleaded in the writ petition is that the Child Development Project Officer, Nuapada made an advertisement for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre and in pursuant to the same the petitioner, opposite party No. 5 and another candidate, namely, Son Kumari Dandsena along with three other candidates have participated in the selection process and their candidature has been scrutinized by the selection committee in which it has been found that the petitioner and opposite party No. 5 are not the residents of the Anganwadi Centre area but the other candidate, namely, Son kumara Dandasena even though a resident of the Angangwadi centre but since an O.B.C. candidate, her candidature was not considered. 4. In Kodomeri Grama Panchayat there are three Anganwadi Centres, Kodomeri-I Anganwadi Centre comprises of ward Nos. 4, 7 & 8 and Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre comprises of ward No. 5 & 6 and another centre, i.e. Chuhuri Anganwadi Centre comprises of ward Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and the Kodomeri Grama Panchayat is coming under the MADA area for which only ST and SC candidates are to be appointed and in case of non-availability of ST and SC candidates from the Anganwadi centre area then the candidates from the Grama Panchayat will be taken into consideration. 5. After receipt of the application form the selection committee invited objections with regard to caste, residence and qualification of the candidates and thereafter final merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner being a schedule caste lady having 10+2 qualification and having highest mark than that of opposite party No. 5 was selected as Anganwadi Worker and accordingly appointment order was issued on 25.7.2013 and she joined on 25.7.2013 but her selection and appointment was questioned by opposite party No. 5 before this court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8873 of 2015 and this court vide order dtd. 17.6.2016 has disposed of the writ petition directing the ADM, Nuapada to dispose of the representation within specific period, accordingly the ADM-cum-Appellate Authority, Nuapada has set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner and directed the CDPO, Nuapada and the selection committee to reconsider the selection of Anganwadi workers of Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre in conformity with the provisions of Government guideline. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the appellate authority has filed this writ petition on the ground that the Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre is coming under the MADA area and as per the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government only ST and SC candidates are to be appointed and the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 5 are not residents of the centre are rather residents of the concerned Panchayat and as such the petitioner having secured higher marks and having more qualification than opposite party No. 5 has rightly been selected but the ADM has not considered this aspect of the matter while cancelling her engagement. 7. It has been contended that in the MADA area the guideline provides ST/SC candidates are to be taken into consideration and since the petitioner belongs to SC category hence she is the right candidate to be selected and engaged being more meritorious than opposite party No. 5 who is a member of ST. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is not provided in the guideline that under the MADA area ST candidate will be selected first and in case of nonavailability of ST candidates the SC candidates will be considered rather in the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 it has been provided that ST or SC candidates shall be selected as Anganwadi worker and in case of no ST/SC candidate is available with the Grama Panchayat then a non-ST/SC candidate will be selected from the area and since the petitioner is a member of SC category hence she has got equal right vis-?-vis the opposite party No. 5 who belongs to ST category and as such the ADM while taking the ground that opposite party No. 5 being a member of ST category has the first right to be considered since the advertisement has been published in MADA area, is without considering the provisions of the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007. 9. 2.5.2007. 9. The opposite parties 1 to 4 having been represented by learned Addl. Government Advocate while opposite party No. 5 has put her appearance through her learned advocate who has filed vakalatnama on 7.2.2016. Both the counsels representing the opposite parties (both State as well as private opposite party) have submitted that since the advertisement is for MADA area which stands for Modified Area Development Approach which has been defined in the letter No. 140/S/03-S-G-C dtd. 2.5.2007 which stands for "These are identified pockets with a consideration of 50% tribal or more ST population within a total population of minimum of ten thousand persons and above". 10. They further submit that since the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 provides that in the schedule area ST/SC candidates shall be selected as Anganwadi worker and in case of non-availability of ST/SC candidate a non-ST/SC candidate may be selected. It has been contended that in the MADA area if the population of the tribal people will be more than 50% then in order to give them proper representation it would be proper to first give preference to the candidate belonging to ST category for uplifting the members of the tribal people which is the main concern of the Government in introducing the concept of Modified Area Development Approach. 11. While replying to this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this cannot be accepted as because in the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 the Government has formulated other provisions meant for Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) areas wherein only ST candidates will be selected as Angangwadi worker. In case no suitable ST candidate is available in the Angangwadi centre then it may be open to SC candidate also, hence the preferential treatment for a candidate belonging to ST candidate is only applicable to Tribal Sub-Plan area and that is not applicable to the MADA area but this has been rebutted by learned counsel for opposite parties by submitting that if the area is populated by majority of its people from a particular community then it would be in the ends of justice to give Anganwadi worker from the said category only if the candidates are available and it is the incorrect interpretation as has been interpreted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since in the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 it has been stated "SC/ST" it will be presumed that the ST and SC category will be put in same category, for substantiating this argument it has been contended by them that ST and SC cannot be kept in the same category and particularly in the facts of the case for which the advertisement has been issued is mostly dominated by the tribal people because the centre is situated in the Kalahandi district and if any member of SC candidate will be engaged giving go bye to the candidate of ST category if the candidate is available, then there will be disturbance in the centre and it will lead to not giving any upliftment to the member of ST category. 12. In the light of this submission the order passed by the ADM has been defended by learned counsels for the opposite parties. 13. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. After hearing the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties it needs to refer the relevant provisions of the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007. The relevant provisions are Sec. 3, 3(b) and 7. "3. The minimum educational qualification for selection will be Matriculation. In the ITDA and MADA areas, however, if no Matriculate candidate is available, the educational qualification may be relaxed for the tribal candidates and SC candidates of Class-VIII examination from a recognized High School. Percentage of marks obtained in the Matriculation examination shall be the basis of drawing a merit list amongst the applicants. In addition to the above, preferential additional percentage will be given to the following categories. 3.(b) In all Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Areas only ST candidates will be selected as Anganwadi Workers. In case no suitable ST candidate is available in the Anganwadi Centre area then it may be made open to SC candidates also. 7. In the scheduled area ST/SC candidates shall be selected as Anganwadi Workers having educational qualification as provided under Para-3 above. In case no suitable ST/SC candidate is available in the area served by the Angangwadi Centre then a suitable ST/SC candidate may be selected from the same Gram Panchayat. If no ST/SC candidate is available within the Grama Panchayat also, then a non-ST/SC candidate may be selected from the area for a period of five years" 14. The guideline dtd. In case no suitable ST/SC candidate is available in the area served by the Angangwadi Centre then a suitable ST/SC candidate may be selected from the same Gram Panchayat. If no ST/SC candidate is available within the Grama Panchayat also, then a non-ST/SC candidate may be selected from the area for a period of five years" 14. The guideline dtd. 18.8.2008 issued by the Women and Child Development Department is being reproduced herein below:-- "xxxxx xxxx xxxx (iii)(b) Modified Area Development Approach (MADA): These are identified pockets with a concentration of 50% tribal or more ST population within a total population of a minimum of 10,000 persons and above. Xxxxxx xxxxx xxx" 15. From perusal of the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 it is evident that the provision has been brought to give preference to the ST/SC candidates for Modified Area Development Approach area, Tribal Sub-Plan area. 16. In the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 provision has been made in the provision No. 3(b) which is meant for all Tribal Sub Plan and provision has been made in provision No. 7 for the schedule area. 17. From perusal of the content of provision 3(b) and 7 it is evident that the same has been made for the schedule area for consideration of the development of the area which is dominated by scheduled tribe and for that the Government has formulated so many policies like Tribal Sub Plan, Rural Integrated Tribal Development Approach and Modified Area Development Approach, etc. the purpose is to develop the area economically for upliftment of the tribal people. 18. The schedule area has been defined which include the Kalahandi district including the Bhabanipatna sub-Division in the Kalahandi district where the centre is situated hence there is no doubt about the fact that the area comes under the schedule area in the State of Odisha which has been specified by the schedule area order 1950 and has also been incorporated in the 5th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The purpose is to uplift the tribal people of the area by declaring the same as schedule area in all respects. The government while formulating the guideline dtd. The purpose is to uplift the tribal people of the area by declaring the same as schedule area in all respects. The government while formulating the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 has specifically provided as condition No. 3(b) of the guideline that in all Tribal Sub-Plan area only ST candidate and in non-availability of ST candidate the SC candidate will be considered likewise in the schedule area ST and SC candidates shall be selected as Anganwadi Worker and in case of non-availability of ST/SC candidate a non-ST/SC candidate may be selected. 19. There is little bit difference in condition No. 3(b) and 7 of the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 to the effect that in condition No. 3(b) the scheduled tribe candidate has been directed to be selected and in case of non-availability of suitable ST candidate SC candidate may be selected while in the schedule area it has been incorporated in condition No. 7 that the ST/SC candidate shall be selected and in case of non-availability of non-ST candidate SC candidate may be selected. 20. Thus in case of Tribal Sub-Plan area it is only ST/SC candidate may be selected but in the schedule area a non-ST/Sc candidate can also be selected in case of nonavailability of suitable ST/SC candidate. In the light of this provision now the case of the petitioner is to be discussed. 21. According to her case the petitioner since belongs to SC community has got right to be considered and engaged since she has got higher marks than the petitioner who belong to ST category but her selection has been quashed by opposite parties held to be contrary to the provision of the guideline since in the guideline dtd. 21. According to her case the petitioner since belongs to SC community has got right to be considered and engaged since she has got higher marks than the petitioner who belong to ST category but her selection has been quashed by opposite parties held to be contrary to the provision of the guideline since in the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 as contained in condition No. 3 or 7 ST or SC are put in the same category since it has been stated that ST/SC so it itself defines that the ST and the SC has been kept in same category and since the petitioner is more meritorious than opposite party No. 5 hence merely on the ground that the petitioner is a member of ST category cannot be selected and engaged but in the light of the decision of the Government while formulating the guideline the intent has to be seen which is being reflected from the condition No. 3(b) and condition No. 7 which has been meant for giving engagement to the ST or SC candidate for Tribal Sub Plan area or the schedule area. 22. There is no dispute about the fact that the Modified Area Development Approach itself defines that the area is thickly populated by ST community. There is also no dispute that the Angnagwadi Centre having been situated in the Bhabanipatna Sub-Division in the district of Kalahandi which is a schedule area as per the decision of the State of Orissa taken in the Schedule Area Order 1950 and the 5th Schedule of the Constitution which itself suggests that the area is thickly populated by the tribal people. When the Government has formulated a policy decision to uplift a specific class of the members of the community then it is to be seen in that prospective so that the intent of the guideline may be fulfilled in its letter and spirit. The intent of the guideline is to uplift the members of the tribal people by engaging the member of scheduled tribe in the area which is thickly populated by the member of the scheduled tribe community which is the fact and circumstances here in this case, as such if the members of the scheduled tribe candidate is available then it would be proper to give engagement to the member of the scheduled tribe. 23. Moreover, in the guideline dtd. 23. Moreover, in the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 also the authorities have stated St/SC since the ST has been given its first position even in allowing preferential additional percentage as contained in condition No. 3 and the condition No. 7 then the candidate of ST candidate is to be considered first for MADA pocket area or Tribal Sub-Plan area or the schedule area for the reason as stated hereinabove. 24. The ADM after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter and placing reliance upon the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007, 18.8.2008 and 4.1.2010 has passed the order regarding giving preference to the member of ST candidate over and above SC candidate and even the candidature of opposite party No. 5 considered to be over and above the candidature of the petitioner and hence there is no infirmity in the same. 25. Merely because the petitioner has obtained higher marks he cannot be held to be entitled for the engagement by giving go bye to the candidature of opposite party No. 5 who belongs to ST category and she has first right to be considered in view of the guideline as referred in the impugned order and the interpretation has been dealt with herein above. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Final Result : Dismissed