JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order 9.1.2015 passed by the appellate authority, Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur, in A.W.W. Appeal No.9 of 2013 is under challenge whereby and where under the engagement of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in pursuance to the advertisement she along with other candidates including the private opposite party no.3 had appeared in the selection process. She made an application dated 3.12.2012 along with certificates like caste certificate, residential certificate and other documents as required in pursuance to the advertisement in question. The petitioner has not submitted residential and caste certificates of the current year i.e. 2012 issued within six months as required under condition no.5 of the advertisement dated 19.11.2012 rather she has submitted these two documents which was issued beyond the period of six months but on the date of verification of the documents on 4.12.2012 she produced the original documents obtained within the period of six months from the date of advertisement and thereby she has been considered to be suitable as meritorious candidate, hence selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker in Lachhipur “Kha” Anganwadi Centre. The unsuccessful candidate, who is the private opposite party no.3 herein, has assailed selection of the petitioner before the A.D.M., the appellate authority, on the ground that her selection is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that she has not submitted complete application along with the residential and caste certificates as per the requirement made in the advertisement wherein under condition no.5 these two certificates of the current year 2012 issued within six months are to be submitted but instead of the same, she has submitted old certificates, hence her application ought to have been rejected at the time of scrutiny but ignoring the specific condition mentioned in the advertisement the selection committee has entertained her application as well as selected and engaged her which is not proper and as such engagement made in her favour is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Additional District Magistrate while considering the condition no.5 of the advertisement in question has cancelled engagement of the petitioner on the ground that the condition mentioned in the advertisement ought to have been followed by the petitioner and since she has not followed, her application itself had to be rejected but instead of doing so, her application was entertained and she has been selected. Accordingly, the A.D.M. has cancelled her engagement. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned A.D.M. by way of the instant writ petition on the ground that she has submitted the original residential and caste certificates issued by the competent authority although beyond the period of six months. She has submitted that the caste certificate was well within the time, so far as residential certificate is concerned, the same could not have been submitted having been issued in the current year 2012 which was due to the compelling situation since she has made an application before the competent authority for issuance of the residential certificate by making an application dated 29.8.2012 but the same has only been supplied on 4.12.2012, the date when scrutiny of the original documents was fixed and immediately after getting it, at the time of scrutiny of the original documents the same was placed and as such the A.D.M. ought to have taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while adjudicating the appeal. She submitted that even if rule prescribes that if any certificate is not being produced the same needs to be verified by the authority but in no case candidature of the candidate will be rejected. 4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-State has submitted that although in the initial stage the selection committee has selected the petitioner on consideration of the certificate which was obtained within period of six months from the date of issuance of the advertisement which was produced by her on the date of the scrutiny of the original documents but the application of the petitioner ought to have been rejected on the ground that she has not submitted the application as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement under condition no.5. The A.D.M., after taking note of this aspect of the matter when it has been raised before him by the unsuccessful candidate, selection of the petitioner has been cancelled. The A.D.M., after taking note of this aspect of the matter when it has been raised before him by the unsuccessful candidate, selection of the petitioner has been cancelled. He submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned A.D.M. as because if any condition is mentioned in the advertisement, it is expected from the candidate to strictly follow it. He further submits that if the condition would not be followed as given in the advertisement, the advertisement itself would be meaningless. He has further contended that if any condition of the advertisement will be go by then why only to this candidate and why not to others and in that view of the matter, it expected from the authority to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the advertisement otherwise it will lead to unfairness and transparency. 5. The private opposite has been represented by her counsel who has also defended the order passed by the A.D.M. by adopting the argument advanced by the petitioner, however he in admission, has submitted that there is no fault on her part rather she has submitted his application along with all requisite certificates as required in pursuance to the advertisement, hence her candidature ought to have been considered over and above the candidature of the petitioner. He submitted that that the selection committee, instead of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, has engaged her which is great injustice done to the private opposite party because there is no fault on her part. He further questions the action of the selection committee that it has given premium to the petitioner for waiting for the current residential certificate as required in the advertisement to produce it on the date of the scrutiny which itself suggests that the selection committee has adopted unfair practice in selecting the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. It is admitted that the selection in question in the State of Odisha is governed under the guideline dated 2.5.2007. The guideline provides a condition of having nativity of the particular centre and for that, residential certificate is to be produced by one or the other candidates. 7. It is admitted that the selection in question in the State of Odisha is governed under the guideline dated 2.5.2007. The guideline provides a condition of having nativity of the particular centre and for that, residential certificate is to be produced by one or the other candidates. It is also taken care of by the authorities that in order to smooth functioning of the Anganwadi Centre, make condition of having nativity in the centre area, to ask candidate to submit latest residential certificate so that there may not be any manipulation of engagement on the basis of the residential certificate which has been issued much prior to issuance of the advertisement, reason being that if current nativity certificate would not be scrutinized, then the foremost eligibility condition of having residence in the centre areas would be meaningless and candidates may change their houses from one place to another and can get engagement on the basis of the residential certificate having her nativity place in some different places, hence the authority, in order to check this irregularity, have inserted a condition in the advertisement dated 19.11.2012 under condition no.5 asking one or the other candidates to submit residential certificate and caste certificate of the current year 2012 issued within six months, for ready reference the said condition is being quoted herein below: “No.5- Permanent resident and Caste certificate of the current year 2012 issued within six months by the concerned Tahasildar are acceptable.” (English translated version of Odia vernacular language) 8. The petitioner along with others had participated in the selection process. It is admitted case of the petitioner that on the date of making application and even on the last date i.e. 3.12.2012 she has not submitted residential certificate for the current year 2012 issued within six months. Her candidature was accepted. She had appeared before the selection committee on 4.12.2012, the date fixed for scrutiny of the original documents, along with original residential certificates issued within six months from the date of advertisement and thereby her candidature has been scrutinized and she has been found to be suitable and accordingly selected and engaged. Her candidature was accepted. She had appeared before the selection committee on 4.12.2012, the date fixed for scrutiny of the original documents, along with original residential certificates issued within six months from the date of advertisement and thereby her candidature has been scrutinized and she has been found to be suitable and accordingly selected and engaged. Her engagement has been questioned by the private opposite party strictly on the ground that the petitioner’s candidature would not have been accepted in view of the fact that the application form was not complete as on the last date of making application even on the last date of submission of application i.e. 3.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given reason of not submitting the documents prior to the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement by submitting that she has made application for getting residential certificate on 29.8.2012 but intentionally and only to deprive her, residential certificate has been issued on 4.12.2012 and as such the petitioner could not be able to submit latest residential certificate before the cut-off date i.e. 3.12.2012. This Court, after appreciating the rival submission of the parties, is concerned with the settled principle of law i.e. any condition given in the recruitment policy, rule or the guideline or even in the advertisement, is to be followed by scrutiny committee, selection committee or even by the candidates. If the candidates are not furnishing applications in terms of the conditions, she/he has got no right to be considered for selection, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty –vs- International Airport Authority of India, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 wherein at paragraph-10 it has been held: “It is well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi-vs- Union of India and others, reported in (2008)1 SCC 362 has reiterated the same view after taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty –vs- International Airport Authority of India(supra). 9. 9. The selection committee has exceeded its jurisdiction by not following the terms and conditions of the advertisement while the same has been issued by them only and if the terms and conditions mentioned therein will not be followed, the entire terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement will be said to be redundant. The other reason for following the terms and conditions of the recruitment rule or the advertisement is that if it will be applicable for one candidates then why not for others. In order to maintain fairness, it would be to look into the condition given in the advertisement in order to scrutinize the candidature of the candidates who have participated in the selection otherwise it will be lead to unfairness in making selection. In view of this proposition of law, the selection committee by accepting the application of the petitioner with the residential certificate issued beyond six months of the year 2012 was not proper. The ground raised by the petitioner that she has applied application for residential certificate on 29.8.2012 but it has been supplied in her faovur on 4.12.2012, hence on that ground she should not be deprived from consideration of candidature, but this ground is not tenable in the eye of law for the reason that the selection committee is only suppose to look into the documents which will be placed before it as to whether the application is in terms of the recruitment rule or the advertisement, the selection committee is not supposed to know the reason of not getting the residential certificate in time. If the selection committee would consider the reason for not getting residential certificate in time, it will lead to arbitrariness and unfairness of the selection process. 10. In view thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the selection committee cannot be approved and the learned Additional District Magistrate while taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has not committed any irregularity in passing the order. Accordingly, this Court restrains itself from interfering with the order passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.