ORDER : Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.04.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2006 whereby and hereunder the Collector has directed the C.D.P.O. to come out with the fresh notification for the post of Anganwadi helper within 30 days. 3. Case of the petitioner is that she being the permanent resident of the hamlet namely Bandar which relates to the revenue village Dhanuharbelari coming under Marichpur G.P. under Balikuda Block in the district of Jagatsinghpur which consists of other two hamlets namely Bandar and Kerabelari and other than these two hamlets there is no other hamlets in the said village. 4. After notification having been published by the opposite parties for the post of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper for different Centers, the petitioner has applied and has been selected and engaged as Anganwadi Helper after following due procedure vide engagement order dated 1.8.2006. 5. Being aggrieved with the selection of the petitioner the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 11630 of 2006 has been filed before this Court and this Court vide order dated 20.10.2006 has directed the Collector, Jagatsinghpur to take decision if representation would be filed before him and on the basis of that order Misc. Case No. 30 of 2006 has been registered and thereafter the Collector without issuing any notice to the petitioner has passed the order on 26.04.2007 directing the C.D.P.O. to come out with a fresh notification inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Helper which has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: (i) Since the petitioner has already been selected and engaged way back in the year 2006 hence the Collector ought to have directed to implead her as one of the parties to the said proceeding but that has not been passed without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner has been appointed vide order dated 1.8.2006 after following due procedure as provided under the guideline dated 24.11.1997 and thereafter she had started discharging her duty without any complaint from any quarter but the Collector has passed an order re-notifying the selection process inviting application afresh but while passing the order, the Collector has not appreciated the fact that in the village in question there are two hamlets i.e., Bandar and Karabelari and save and except these two hamlets there is no other hamlets hence there is no question of other hamlets to be acknowledged about the notice. (iii) The Collector has taken into consideration the enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Collector dated 09.04.2007 from which it has been pointed out that notice has been served on some hamlets like Bandar and Kerbellary sufficiently, but not properly served on other hamlets. But which are the hamlets that has not been disclosed hence the Collector has passed the order in a mechanical manner that too when the petitioner has been selected way back in the year 2006. (iv) Even assuming the notice has not been issued then also engagement of the petitioner already made by the competent authority cannot be taken away if there is no fault on the part of the petitioner as such the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the latches committed on the part of the authorities concerned. 6. This Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed the order dated 18.06.2007, issued notice to the opposite parties and simultaneously passed an order of stay operation that any engagement made to the post of Anganwadi Helper for the centre in question shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. 7. Record shows that the petitioner has taken steps for service of notice upon the opposite parties. In pursuance to the same, learned Counsel for the opposite party-State has represented by the learned Additional Advocate but none represented opposite party No. 5. 8. While office note says that the notice has been served upon opposite party No. 5 and Vakalatnama has also been filed by M/s. U.K. Mohanty and his associates appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 5, but none represented the opposite party No. 5 today. 9. Since the matter is of the year 2007 hence the matter is disposed of on the basis of material available on record. 10. 9. Since the matter is of the year 2007 hence the matter is disposed of on the basis of material available on record. 10. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order dated 26.04.2007 as because when the authorities had come to know that some illegality had been committed in the selection process they have got right to cancel the selection process and to notify for fresh selection. 11. This contention of the learned Counsel for the State has vehemently been opposite by the learned Counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the reason for which fresh notification has been issued cannot be termed as illegality at best it can be termed as irregularity but for the irregularity, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Moreover, it is also not irregularity because the ground taken by the Collector in his order based upon the enquiry report that the notice has not been communicated to the people of other hamlets save and except Bandar and Kerbellary but there is only two hamlets namely Bandar and Kerbellary hamlets only. 12. He further contended the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the State that the selection and engagement of the petitioner has not been struck down by the Collector without doing so, the notification for inviting fresh applications have been made. 13. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 14. Undisputed question of fact in this case is that the petitioner has made an application for consideration of her candidature for engagement as Anganwadi Helper in pursuance of the guideline dated 24.11.1997. 15. The petitioners case was placed before the Mahila Sabha and on the basis of that recommendation made by the women group of the village she was declared to be successful candidate and thereafter engagement order dated 1.8.2006 has been issued by the C.D.P.O. in her favour (Annexure-4). 16. The petitioner has started discharging her duty and after her engagement the writ petition has been filed before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 11630 of 2006 disposed of on 20.10.2006 directing the Collector to take decision. 17. In view thereof, the Collector, Jagatsinghpur has initiated Misc. Case No. 30 of 2006 which was disposed of on 26.04.2007 directing the C.D.P.O. to issue fresh notification inviting fresh applications for engagement of Anganwadi Helper for the centre in question. 18. 17. In view thereof, the Collector, Jagatsinghpur has initiated Misc. Case No. 30 of 2006 which was disposed of on 26.04.2007 directing the C.D.P.O. to issue fresh notification inviting fresh applications for engagement of Anganwadi Helper for the centre in question. 18. The Collector has given finding based upon the enquiry report dated 09.04.2007 submitted by the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur according to the enquiry report it was pointed out that notification inviting applications have been served upon the hamlets like Bandar and Kerbellary sufficiently but not property served on other hamlets but which are the hamlets that has not been disclosed in the order passed by the Collector. 19. While the specific case of the petitioner is that the village confined only to two hamlets i.e., Bandar and Kerbellary hamlets hence there is no need to issue further publication of notification for other hamlets but the Collector has not gone into this aspect of the matter and has directed to invite fresh applications by issuing fresh. notification without taking into consideration that the petitioner has already been engaged way back in the year 2006 but he has not been impleaded as one of the parties to the proceeding and in her absence the impugned order was passed hence the order dated 26.04.2007 cannot be said to be binding upon the petitioner due to the settled proposition that that if any order passed by any Court of law and if the affected party has not been impleaded as party to the proceeding, the said order cannot be said to have binding effect upon the said party. 20. Here in this case, the petitioner was engaged by following due procedure but the Collector has not taken any pain to implead the selectee candidate i.e., the petitioner and has directed for fresh notification and the Collector since relied upon the reports without actually ascertaining the factual aspects, hence the order is not justified. 21. Moreover, the order dated 26.04.2007 has got no binding effect upon the petitioner further since the order has been passed in absence of the petitioner hence she cannot be disallowed to function as Anganwadi Helper in pursuance to the order dated 1.8.2006. 22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 8.6.2007 the petitioner is still continuing if that is so she will continue to discharge her duty. 23. 22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 8.6.2007 the petitioner is still continuing if that is so she will continue to discharge her duty. 23. In the result, the order dated 26.04.2007 is set aside. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.