JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. The appellant, being opposite party no.3 in the writ petition, has filed this intra-court appeal against the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21730 of 2011 reversing the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.10 of 2010 quashing her selection as Anganwadi Worker and directing the authority to pass appropriate order regarding engagement of respondent no.3 against the said post. 2. The factual matrix of the case, succinctly put, is that respondent no.2 issued an advertisement on 08.09.2009 for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for seventy five additional Anganwadi Centres specifying the eligibility criteria for the candidates. The appellant and respondent no.3, who belong to village Jasobantapur under Jagatsinghpur Block, applied for the post of Anganwadi worker for the additional Anganwadi Centre, which was to be opened for Ward nos. 4 and 7 of village Jasobantapur under Jasobantapur Gram Panchayat in Jagatsinghpur Block. The last date of submission of the application was 29.09.2009 and scrutiny/verification of certificates was to be done between 01.10.2009 and 10.10.2009 in presence of the applicants. Objection, if any, was to be filed between 10.10.2009 and 19.10.2009. The scrutiny/appointment committee took into consideration such objection between 20.10.2009 and 28.10.2009 and proceeded with the selection process by adhering to the guidelines issued by the authorities from time to time. As per Clause-3 of the revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Worker issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Odisha on 02.05.2007, which was then governing the field, it is clearly indicated therein that 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 to 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 of mark will be given to different categories. So far as physically handicapped women category is concerned, preferential mark of five percent is to be added. Following such guidelines, the appellant being a physically handicapped candidate, engagement order was issued in her favour on 11.12.2009, pursuant to which she joined against the said post and discharged her duty assigned to her. So far as physically handicapped women category is concerned, preferential mark of five percent is to be added. Following such guidelines, the appellant being a physically handicapped candidate, engagement order was issued in her favour on 11.12.2009, pursuant to which she joined against the said post and discharged her duty assigned to her. Respondent no.3, aggrieved by the selection of the appellant, preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector on 21.12.2009, which was registered as Anganwadi Misc. Appeal Case No. 20 of 2009, but, since there was change of guidelines, she again preferred an appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, which was registered as Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 10 of 2010. The Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.03.2011 holding that the engagement of the appellant was legal and justified. Against the said order, respondent no.3 filed W.P.(C) No. 21730 of 2011 before this Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 25.08.2015 holding that the selection committee has given weightage by giving extra marks on the basis of the certificate dated 16.08.2009, which is not justified, and the selection and engagement of the appellant is not in consonance with the guidelines on the basis of which selection has been made. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge quashed the selection of the appellant and directed the competent authority to proceed with the matter by passing appropriate order regarding engagement of respondent no.3 within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Hence this appeal. 3. Mrs. M. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the Govt. of Odisha in General Administration Department pursuant to the decision of the Government of India in the year 1978 and Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of right and Full participation) Act, 1995 prepared comprehensive list of posts suitable for persons disability, issued resolution and published in Orissa Gazete on 13th February, 2006, wherein “Anganwadi worker” finds place at Sl. No.2 of Group-D post. In the said list of categories of the persons with disabilities for purposes of reservation in employment, it has been mentioned as OL (one leg affected), BL(MNR) [both leg affected(Mobility not be restricted)], P.D. (Partially deaf). No.2 of Group-D post. In the said list of categories of the persons with disabilities for purposes of reservation in employment, it has been mentioned as OL (one leg affected), BL(MNR) [both leg affected(Mobility not be restricted)], P.D. (Partially deaf). Further, the Government in its letter dated 2nd May, 2007 issued a revised guidelines in supersession of all previous guidelines/orders for selection and engagement of Anganwadi workers and subsequently issued a clarification on 01.08.2009. The same having been adhered to and the appellant having been duly selected and engaged as Anganwadi worker by getting preferential additional marks of five percent as a physically handicapped candidate, as she is having 45% prolapsed inter vertebral discard Neurological defect, which comes under the definition of disability under Section 2(1)(v) read with Section 2(t) of the 1995 Act, the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in quashing the selection of the appellant. It is further urged that with regard to the procedure envisaged under the guidelines dated 02.05.2007, especially in clauses-(c),(d) and (e), respondent no.3 having not raised any objection in respect of the certificate produced by the appellant, she is estopped from raising such contention subsequently. As such, knowing fully well that the appellant’s case has been considered under the category of physically handicapped and she is entitled to get five percent preferential marks and having participated in the process of selection, respondent no.3 cannot subsequently turn round and challenge her selection, as she could not come out successful. This aspect having not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, a gross error apparent on the face of the record has been committed and, therefore, interference of this Court is warranted in this appeal. 4. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State strenuously urged that the selection of the appellant having been done in consonance with the guidelines issued by the State authorities and, more particularly, her case having been considered under the physically handicapped category pursuant to the certificate issued by the competent authority, the genuineness of which was not challenged by respondent no.3, she cannot assail the same subsequently in a writ application. More so, the consideration of the appellant having been done on the basis of the certificate issued by the competent authority under physically handicapped category and the same having not been objected to at the time of verification of the documents, which is required under the guidelines, respondent no.3 cannot urge that the selection of the appellant as Anganwadi worker is illegal. He, however, justifies with emphasis the order passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 10 of 2010 disposed of on 24.03.2011. 5. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for respondent no.3 candidly admitted that at the time of scrutiny of the certificates, respondent no.3 had not raised any objection with regard to the physically handicapped certificate issued by the competent authority, but fairly admitted that the appellant has been selected under the physically handicapped category and, thereby, she has secured higher percentage of mark than that of respondent no.3. It is urged that if the preferential marks under the physically handicapped category would not have been awarded to the appellant, respondent no.3 would have a fair chance to be engaged as Anganwadi worker, as she secured higher marks than that of the appellant. 6. On the basis of the facts pleaded above and after going through the records, this appeal is being disposed of by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 7. As the facts stated above are not in dispute, it is to be considered whether the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the order impugned by setting aside the selection and engagement of appellant as an Anganwadi worker pursuant to the advertisement issued on 08.09.2009. Admittedly, both appellant and respondent no.3 applied for the post of Anganwadi worker in respect of Jasobantpur Additional Anganwadi Centre for Ward nos. 4 and 7 of Jasobantapur Gram Panchayat of Jagatsinghpur Block and by following due procedure, as envisaged under the guidelines issued by the authority, the appellant was selected and engaged as Anganwadi worker under the preferential category of physically handicapped. The said selection was challenged by respondent no.3 by preferring an appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur being Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 10 of 2010. The pleadings made in the appeal memo are as follows:- “1. The said selection was challenged by respondent no.3 by preferring an appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur being Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 10 of 2010. The pleadings made in the appeal memo are as follows:- “1. That, the Appellant after her marriage on 29.04.07 has been residing permanently at village-Jasabantapur, under Ward No. 4 of Jasabantapur Grampanchayat, with her husband and in-laws, and in view of her such permanent residence the local Tahasildar, after proper enquiry has issued the Residential Certificate in her favour. 2. That, the appellant is a Graduate in Class II Hon(s) in Political Science securing 67% in H.S.C. Examination. 3. That, after the notification for the post of Anganwadi worker for a newly formed Anganwadi Centre in Ward No. 4 of Jasabantapur Gram Panchayat under Jagatsinghpur Panchayat Samiti, in the District of Jagatsinghpur, the appellant and the Respondent no.1 with other applicants applied for the said post. 4. That, the application of the appellant is accompanied by her Educational Certificates, Residential Certificate along with all other necessary documents required for the said post. Similarly, other candidates also filed their application along with their required certificates. 5. That, after verification of the Certificates of all the candidates it was found that the appellant has secured the highest marks and eligible for the said post and the appellant no.2 has opined that the letter of appointment would be sent to her in due process. 6. That, the appellant believing the words of the Respondent no.2 remained silent awaiting the letter of appointment, but subsequently it is learnt that the Respondent no.1 has been selected in place of the appellant even though she has secured less marks and further it is also ascertained that the Respdt. No.2 under political influence has ignored the fundamental principle of natural justice, and taken such decision without complying the guidelines and principles and instructions framed by the authorities, on the subject. Hence this appeal. Being aggrieved by such illegal order of appointment/selection of the Respondent no.1 the appellant above named, begs to prefer this appeal on the following amongst other. GROUNDS A) For that the selection of Respondent no.1 for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Ward No.4 of Josabantapur Gram Panchayat is illegal, not sustainable both in the eye of law and materials available on record, and hence the same is to be set aside. GROUNDS A) For that the selection of Respondent no.1 for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Ward No.4 of Josabantapur Gram Panchayat is illegal, not sustainable both in the eye of law and materials available on record, and hence the same is to be set aside. B) For that when the appellant has secured the highest marks to the Respondent no.1, the C.D.P.O., the Respondent no.2 should have not issued the letter of appointment in favour of the Respondent no.1 and thereby the Respondent no.2 has committed serious illegality and hence the same to be set aside. C) For that non-compliance of the statutory instructions issued by the authorities on the subject in case of Selection of Respondent no.1 by the Respondent no.2 is sheer arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be cancelled. D) For that when the provisions is to select the candidate for the post of Anganwadi Workers, who has secured the highest marks and the Respondent no.2 instead of selecting the Appellant, who has secured highest mark, selected the Respondent no.1 who has secured lowest mark is against the principle and as such, the said selection is to be cancelled. E) For that non-selection of the Appellant without valid reason is perverse, vague and non-application of mind, and as such, the same is to be cancelled. F) For that the Respondent no.2 has committed flagrant of mis carriage of justice by not considering the selection in proper prospective, and hence is to be set aside. g) For that the selection by the Respondent no.2 in selecting the Respondent no.1 to the post of Anganwadi Worker is otherwise illegal, and liable to be set aside. PRAYER It is, therefore, prayed that your honour would be graciously pleased to Admit this appeal, call for the records/report from the Respondent No.2, and after hearing, allow the appeal, set aside the selection of Respondent no.1, as Anganwadi Worker for the Ward No. 4 of Josabantapur G.P., and pass orders for selection/appointment of the appellant for the said post.” 8. On perusal of the above mentioned appeal memo preferred by respondent no.3, it appears that she has not assailed the genuineness or correctness of physically handicapped certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the appellant. On perusal of the above mentioned appeal memo preferred by respondent no.3, it appears that she has not assailed the genuineness or correctness of physically handicapped certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the appellant. The certificate dated 16.08.2009 for the persons with disabilities annexed to the writ appeal as Annexure-2 would show that a competent Medical Board has issued such certificate under Rule 4(2) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Right and full participation) Rules, 1995 and as per the guidelines given by the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India Gazette Notification dated 06.08.1986. In the said certificate, it is indicated that the appellant is 45% disabled having suffered from prolapsed inter vertebral discard Neurological defect. Such certificate has never been challenged by respondent no.3 at any stage nor has she raised any objection as per clauses-(c), (d) and (e) of the procedure envisaged in the guidelines issued by the authority dated 02.05.2007. But, the pleadings made in the appeal memo, which have been quoted above, do not indicate that in the appeal preferred before the learned Addl. District Magistrate, the genuineness of the certificate issued by the competent authority was challenged by respondent no.3. However, in the writ application filed by respondent no.3, before the learned Single Judge, she tried to make out a completely new case as to the genuineness of the certificate issued by the competent authority, which the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration and passed the impugned order. 9. The learned Addl. District Magistrate considering the grounds taken in the appeal memo categorically held that the appeal preferred by respondent no.3 has not whispered regarding the physically handicapped certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Jagatsinghpur in favor of the appellant. The notification provided to file objection in respect of physically handicapped certificate till 28.10.2009. Respondent no.3 having not preferred any objection in respect of physically handicapped certificate issued in favour of the appellant, prayer made at the time of hearing to verify by one expert does not arise. From the letter issued on 15.09.2010 by the CDMO, Jagatsinghpur addressed to all the CDPO’s, it appears that the name of the appellant has appeared at sl.no.8 of the verification report on authenticity of physically handicapped certificate issued in her favour. Therefore, disbelieving the said certificate does not arise. From the letter issued on 15.09.2010 by the CDMO, Jagatsinghpur addressed to all the CDPO’s, it appears that the name of the appellant has appeared at sl.no.8 of the verification report on authenticity of physically handicapped certificate issued in her favour. Therefore, disbelieving the said certificate does not arise. But only contention raised that respondent no.3 having secured higher percentage of marks in matriculation and if the preferential five percent of marks will not be added to the marks awarded to the appellant, respondent no.3 will be selected. This contention is also not correct and it is bereft of the record inasmuch as the selection committee including the CDPO, Jagatsinghpur verified all the certificates of the applicants, namely, Suhasini Panda, Surekha Rath-respondent no.3 and Jayantibala Pati-appellant and found that Suhasini Panda has secured 59.40%, Surekha Rath has secured 69.26% and similarly Jayantibala Pati has secured 69.40% marks, which is the highest percentage of marks among the applicants. In addition to the mark secured by the appellant, she has got extra five percent of preferential marks as she belonged to physically handicapped category pursuant to the certificate issued by the competent authority. Consequentially, the selection committee has selected her to be engaged as Anganwadi worker in respect of ward no.4 newly created under Jasobantapur Gram Panchayat of Jagatsinghpur Block. Therefore, no illegality and irregularity has been committed either by the selection committee or by the Addl. District Magistrate. 10. Apart from the above, as per the guidelines issued on 02.05.2007, under clause-(c) of the procedure, it is clearly stated that at the time of verification of documents of the applicants, in their presence, the CDPO would notify the names of the applicants in the office notice board, at the village, GP and Panchayat Samiti level. In case 16th day is a holiday then verification and notification of applicants will be done on the next working day. In clause-(d) of the procedure, it is stated that seven days time will be given for filing of objection, if any, by the community on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate. Under clause-(e) it is stated that the selection committee may take seven days time to verify the objections received. At the time of verification of documents in presence of the applicants, respondent no.3 admittedly has not raised any objection with regard to the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Under clause-(e) it is stated that the selection committee may take seven days time to verify the objections received. At the time of verification of documents in presence of the applicants, respondent no.3 admittedly has not raised any objection with regard to the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. Therefore, in subsequent stage in the writ application, respondent no.3 is estopped from raising such objection. Apart from the same, respondent no.3 having participated in the process of selection without raising any objection, subsequently she having not been come out successful, cannot challenge the same. 11. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, AIR 1986 SC 1043 , it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three Judges of the Apex Court that when the petitioner therein appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 12. In Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, AIR 1995 SC 1088 , it has been held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In paragraph9 of the said judgment it is held as follows:- “9. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who take a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. It is for the Interview Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee.” 13. Applying the above principles to the instant case, respondent no.3 having participated in the process of selection without raising any objection, as required under the guidelines issued on 02.05.2007, merely because she could not come out successful, she cannot raise objection with regard to the selection of the appellant. More so, in the appeal preferred by her, respondent no.3 having not raised any objection with regard to the genuineness or correctness of the physically handicapped certificate granted by the competent Medical Board, in the writ application preferred by her, she cannot make out a new case to frustrate the claim of the appellant. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by passing the order impugned. Therefore, the order so passed by the learned Single Judge cannot sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21730 of 2011 is quashed. 14. While entertaining the appeal preferred by the appellant, this Court vide order dated 29.09.2015 in Misc. Case No. 744 of 2015 granted interim order directing that status quo as regards continuation of service of the appellant be maintained. But vide order dated 22.01.2016, this Court passed an order that learned counsel for the appellant is not present on the ground that he is sick, as stated by Smt. M. Panda, and this Court directed that the matter be listed on 01.02.2016 on the understanding that the ad-interim order is not operating and the appeal is supposed to be heard for final disposal. Meaning thereby, the interim order passed by this Court on 29.09.2015 even though was vacated on 22.01.2016, consequence thereof has not been given effect to. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is still continuing in service as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Ward no.4 of Additional Anganwadi Centre of Jasobantapur Anganwadi centre till date. Therefore, if the appellant is continuing in the said post, this Court makes it clear that she shall be allowed to continue in service as before. 15. With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.