JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order (Annexure-3) and for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to appoint her instead of opposite party No. 4. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to an advertisement the petitioner along with other including opposite party No. 4 had participated in the selection process for engagement of Anganwadi worker in which the opposite party No. 4 was appointed which was challenged by the petitioner in Anganwadi Appeal No. 9 of 2007 which was allowed and the opposite party No. 4 was directed to be disengaged and to take steps for filling up the posts immediately according to the revised guideline. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of disengagement, opposite party No. 4 had challenged the same before this court vide W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.8.2008 declining to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority and disposed of the writ petition with a direction that amongst the petitioner and opposite party No. 4, who is most suitable, be engaged. 5. The petitioner has communicated the order passed by this court before opposite party No. 3 for implementing the same but when no decision was taken by the authorities, the petitioner having no option has approached this court by way of preferring writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 9124 of 2009 and this court has repeated the order passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008 while disposing of the writ petition and thereafter opposite party No. 4 has been selected, being aggrieved with the selection of opposite party No. 4 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. The ground taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is more suitable than opposite party No. 4 and as such she ought to have been selected and engaged but the authority has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and selected opposite party No. 4 which is absolutely improper and incorrect. 7. 6. The ground taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is more suitable than opposite party No. 4 and as such she ought to have been selected and engaged but the authority has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and selected opposite party No. 4 which is absolutely improper and incorrect. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has worked as Balbadi teacher for more period in comparison to opposite party No. 4 and being intermediate having higher educational qualification than opposite party No. 4, who is only matriculate, she ought to have been selected and engaged. 8. The opposite party-State has appeared and filed counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that the selection committee has considered the suitability of both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 and on the basis of the record available opposite party No. 4 was found to be more suitable since serious allegation of manipulation has been pointed out against the petitioner and as such taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner even though she was more qualified than opposite party No. 4 and the opposite party No. 4 being less experienced as the petitioner, has been selected and engaged. 9. Opposite party No. 4 has appeared and filed detail counter affidavit through his counsel. It has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 that there is no illegality having been committed by the selection committee in selecting opposite party No. 4 since the selection committee has acted in pursuance to the order passed by this court and the suitability of both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 had been tested and in course of analysis of suitability it has come on record that the petitioner has manipulated the thing for getting experience certificate in pursuance to the period for which he has worked as Balbadi Teacher and as such considering her conduct she was found not fit to be engaged as Anganwadi worker. Hence it has been submitted that there is no illegality committed by the selection committee in engaging the opposite party No. 4. 10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. 11. Hence it has been submitted that there is no illegality committed by the selection committee in engaging the opposite party No. 4. 10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. 11. The undisputed fact in this case is that the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 along with others had participated in the selection process in which opposite party No. 4 had not been selected and hence she had filed writ petition before this court being W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008 and this court has passed the following order: "xxxxxx After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order this Court is satisfied that the Collector has not committed any error apparent on the face of record and the conclusions arrived at are based on the materials available on record. This court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the same and disposes of this writ petition with a direction that among petitioner and opposite party No. 5 who is most suitable be selected for engagement. While making the engagement the authority shall also consider the fact that person similarly situated like the petitioner are still continuing in the post." 12. When the authorities have not complied the direction passed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008, the petitioner being aggrieved has approached this court again vide W.P.(C) No. 9124 of 2009 and this court has passed the following order: "After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, this court is satisfied that the Collector has not committed any error apparent on the face of record and the conclusions arrived at are based on the materials available on record. This court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the same and disposes of this writ petition with a direction that among petitioner and opposite party No.5 who is most suitable be selected for engagement. While making the engagement, he authority shall also consider the fact that persons similarly situated like the petitioner are still continuing in the post." The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that till date the authorities have neither complied with the direction issued by this court earlier nor they have completed the paraphernalia with regard to selection of Anganwadi Worker in respect of the aforesaid centre. In view of the aforesaid allegation, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing the C.D.P.O., Sadar, Puri, opposite party No.4 to comply with the direction issued by this court in W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months, if the same has not been complied. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to submit a certified copy of this order as well as other authenticated copy of the orders to facilitate expeditious disposal." 13. In view of the order passed by this court the selection committee has assessed the suitability of the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 in which the opposite party No. 4 has been found to be the fittest candidate in comparison to the petitioner and has been selected. 14. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is intermediate of Arts while opposite party No. 4 is matriculate, the petitioner is having more experience as Balbadi Teacher i.e. from 22.7.1996 to 30.4.2001 i.e. for a period of four years nine months approximately while opposite party No. 4 had experience as Balbadi Teacher for the period from 6.10.2004 to 8.8.2007 i.e. for a period of two years and ten months and some odd but even thereafter the opposite party No. 4 has been selected, which according to the petitioner is incorrect decision of the authorities and also contrary to the appellate order passed by the Collector which has been affirmed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008. 15. On perusal of the order passed by the Collector in Anganwadi Appeal No. 9 of 2007 it is evident that both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 have not been found to be eligible as per the guideline and this order was under challenge before this court in W.P.(C) No. 7594 of 2008 and this court while declining to interfere with the finding given by the Collector has directed the competent authority to select the suitable candidate in between the petitioner and opposite party No. 5. 16. The competent authority has assessed the suitability of the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 on the basis of materials available on record before them. 16. The competent authority has assessed the suitability of the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 on the basis of materials available on record before them. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is intermediate in Arts, have worked as Balbadi Teacher from 22.7.1996 to 30.4.2001 while opposite party No. 4 being a Matriculate has worked as Balbadi Teacher from 6.10.2004 to 8.8.2007 which is a period lesser than the period of the petitioner performed service as Balbadi Teacher and as such on these two ground admittedly the petitioner is more suitable but the authorities have also considered one important aspect of the matter which is a complaint regarding the conduct of the petitioner as annexed as annexure-3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4 wherein it has been reported to the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality regarding the report in issuance of experience certificate in favour of Sandhyarani Mishra i.e. (i) on verification of office records it reveals that Shandhya Rani Mishra, ex-Balwadi teacher was working in Puri municipality as Balwadi Teacher from 22.7.1996 to 30.4.2001 at Bali-Nolia Sahi (B) centre, (ii) verified the acquaintance register and found that she was working and received her remuneration till 2001, (iii) that due to long un-authorised absence of the applicant the concerned authority has engaged Pramila Das Balbadi Teacher from 1.10.2001 in place of Smt. Mishra, ex-Balbadi Teacher, (iv) the Municipal authority has already issued an experience certificate on 17.6.2006 in her favour, (v) she has obtained a letter bearing No.4981 dated 13.9.2006 from the office for sponsoring her name as ex-Balbadi teacher for the post of Anganwadi Helper as per her application dated 11.9.2006 as a routine manner, (vi) that the applicant have stated for issuing of experience certificate from 22.7.1996 till date which is false as per office record, (vii) visited the spot and found that there is no such Balwadi centre is functioning in that area from August, 2007, previously Pramila Das was working as Balwadi Teacher in that centre, now who is working as Anganwadi Helper in Bali Nolia Sahi (A) centre. 17. 17. Thus from the said enquiry it is evident that the petitioner's conduct has been shown not to fit to hold any duty under the control of the State Government as because she had tried to manipulate the thing for getting experience certificate for using it in her engagement which cannot be said to be proper and if such thing has come on record, the petitioner cannot be said to be the fittest candidate to be engaged in any duty having controlled by the Government even for Anganwadi Worker. 18. In view thereof the selection committee after considering the conduct of the petitioner has found opposite party No. 4 as the fittest candidate even though she is lesser qualified than the petitioner but with requisite educational qualification as per guideline and having less experience as Balwadi Teacher than the petitioner but the decision of the selection committee cannot be questioned for the reason that while entering in a Government duty the conduct of the candidate is necessary to be seen and if the conduct has been seen which is not of good character, he/she cannot be said to be a fittest candidate even though the candidate is having more qualification or more experience. 19. The further part which has been taken into consideration by the selection committee that the opposite party No. 4 is fulfilling the minimum educational qualification of having matriculate and she has not been given any weightage regarding the experience which she was having as Balbadi teacher as because the Collector has held in his order that both the candidates are not eligible but this Court has confined the selection process in between the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4 with a direction upon the selection committee to chose the fittest candidate among two candidates and accordingly the selection committee has found opposite party No. 4 as the fittest candidate and accordingly selected and engaged her. 20. It is necessary to make it clear that this court in exercise of power of Judicial Review is only required to see whether the decision making process is proper or not and from the facts dealt with above, in my considered view, there is no illegality in the decision taken by the selection committee as would be evident from the discussion made above. 21. 21. In view of the reasons mentioned herein above the order passed by this court has strictly been complied with by the opposite parties in testing the suitability of the candidates, i.e. opposite party No. 4 who is more suitable than the petitioner. 22. In view of the foregoing reasons I find no infirmity in the decision of the selection committee. 23. Accordingly, the case is dismissed being devoid of merit.