JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of this writ application seeks to quash the order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Jagatsinghpur-opposite party No. 2 in Annexure-7, by which the appointment of opposite party No. 3 has been confirmed in compliance of order dated 12.03.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012, and further to issue direction to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to engage her as Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha) (i) Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that advertisement dated 08.09.2009 was issued by the CD P.O., Jagatsinghpur-opposite party No. 2 inviting applications from the eligible women candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in various Anganwadi Centers, including Odiso (Kha)(i) Anganwadi Centre, under Jagatsinghpur Block. The petitioner, along with opposite party No. 3, and other candidates applied for the said post. The petitioner in her application had mentioned that she is physically handicapped and has secured 50.93 % of marks in matriculation, whereas the opposite party No. 3 had mentioned her qualification as matriculation and she has secured 54.01 % of marks At the time of submission of application form or verification of documents, the opposite party No. 3 had neither mentioned nor submitted any document with regard to her higher qualification but only during the period of objection, i.e. from 12.10.2009 to 19.10.2009, she produced the documents with regard to her qualification i.e. +2 Arts pass. During the process of selection, the selection committee awarded 55.93 % marks to the petitioner, including 5% extra marks on the basis of physical handicapped certificate, whereas the opposite party No. 3 was awarded 59.13% marks, including 5% extra marks given for higher qualification and was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker Challenging the selection, of opposite party No. 3, the petitioner filed an appeal before opposite party No. 1. The appellate authority, vide order dated 24.05.2012, disposed of the appeal observing therein that illegality was committed during the selection process and opposite party No. 3 was illegally appointed, for which her selection was cancelled and opposite party No. 1 was directed to prepare a merit list ignoring the higher qualification of opposite party No. 3 and also the physical handicapped certificate of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 15% on the basis of the report of the HOD, Department of Orthopedic, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Challenging the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012 and the opposite party No. 3 filed W.P.(C) No. 10472 of 2012. This Court heard the matter analogously and passed a common order on 12.02.2013 observing that if a candidate is physically handicapped she is entitled to 5% extra mark as per the above guidelines and the selection committee has to follow the guidelines The order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and the selection committee was directed to issue engagement order in favour of the candidate having possessed higher percentage of marks. In pursuance of the order dated 12.02.2013, the selection committee selected opposite party No. 3 as Anganwadi Worker by awarding her 5% marks for her higher qualification and issued appointment order in her favour. Hence this application. 3. Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to advertisement dated 08.09.2009 issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Jagatsinghpur, the petitioner along with opposite party No. 3 and other candidates applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha) (i) [Odiso B(i)] Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block. The petitioner is a physical handicapped category person and is entitled 5% extra mark, whereas opposite party No. 3 had produced the certificate for acquisition of her higher qualification only at the time of scrutiny and thus she is not entitled to get 5% extra mark, as she has not produced such certificate at the time of submission of her application. Thereby, the higher qualification acquired by opposite party No. 3 and the certificate produced thereof at the time of scrutiny could not have been taken into consideration, as the last date of submission of application was over and at the time of scrutiny the authority could not have entertained such application. If the certificate of opposite party No. 3, with regard to acquisition of her higher qualification is not taken into consideration, then the petitioner is the only eligible candidate, who is to get the appointment as Anganwadi Worker. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Diptimayee Parida v. State of Orissa and others, (2008) 10 SCC 687 . 4. Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that admittedly both the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker, pursuant to advertisement issued on 08.09.2009 by the CDPO, Jagatsinghpur. The petitioner being a physically handicapped candidate, she is entitled to get 5% extra marks. So far as opposite party No. 3 is concerned, she is also entitled to get 5% extra marks on the basis of acquisition of higher qualification, but the said certificate had been produced by her at the time of scrutiny, not at the time of submission of application, which has been taken into consideration and consequentially, the opposite party No. 3 has been awarded 5% extra mark and she has been selected for getting appointment as Anganwadi Worker. 5. Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 contended that admittedly at the time, of submission of application form, the opposite party No. 3 had not produced her higher qualification certificate of +2, but at the time of scrutiny, she produced such certificate, which has been taken into consideration, thereby, she has been given 5% extra marks and consequentially, she has been selected for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. As such, award of mark has been done in compliance of order dated 12.02.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012 Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed with regard to selection of opposite party No. 3 as Anganwadi Worker. 6. This Court heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and 2; and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3; and perused the record. 6. This Court heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 and 2; and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3; and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that an advertisement was issued on 08.09.2009 by the CDPO, Jagatsinghpur inviting application from the eligible candidates for filling up of the post of Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha) (i) [Odiso B(i)] of Jagatsinghpur Block. The petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, has secured 55.93 marks, including 5% marks on the basis of physically handicapped certificate produced by her, whereas the opposite party No. 3 has secured 59.13 % of marks, including 5% marks on the basis of her higher qualification acquired by her. The certificate thereof, which had been produced by opposite party No. 3 before the authority at the time of scrutiny, was not produced at the time of submission of application form in support of her higher qualification for getting extra 5% marks. Challenging the selection of opposite party No. 3 the petitioner had filed Anganwadi Appeal No. 17 of 2010 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur-opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the marks secured by opposite party No. 3 adding 5% extra for acquisition of higher qualification should not be taken into consideration, as she had not produced any materials in support of the same at the time of submission of application form. Meaning thereby, by the last date of submission of the application, the opposite party No. 3 had not produced any certificate indicating acquisition of higher qualification, but the said certificate was produced at the time of scrutiny of the application form by the authority The appellate authority passed the order on 24.05.2012 to the following effect: "xx xx xx. Meaning thereby, by the last date of submission of the application, the opposite party No. 3 had not produced any certificate indicating acquisition of higher qualification, but the said certificate was produced at the time of scrutiny of the application form by the authority The appellate authority passed the order on 24.05.2012 to the following effect: "xx xx xx. On entire analysis of records I found illegality has been committed during the selection process and respondent No. 2 was illegally appointed on that particular time and such, I hereby cancelled the engagement of respondent No. 2 as Anganwadi Worker and CDPO, Jagatsinghpur is directed to prepare a merit list ignoring the higher education of respondent No. 2 and also the Physical Handicapped "certificate-of appellant and convey a Selection Committee for the aforesaid purpose within one month from the receipt of this order and accordingly the appeal is disposed of on contest." Challenging the above order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012 and opposite party No. 3 filed W.P.(C) No. 10472 of 2012. Both the writ applications were heard together and a common order was passed, which is as follows: "W.P. (C) Nos. 12322 of 2012 & 10472 of 2012 3. 12.02.2013 Since common order dated 24.05.2012 passed by learned Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur (opp. party No. 1) in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 17 of 2010 has been challenged by both the petitioners in different writ petitions, the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by the following order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate As it appears, pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.9.2009 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Jagatsinghpur, the petitioners along with others applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha) (i) [Odiso B(i)] Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block. Rashmiprava Moharana (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012) secured 55.93 % marks including 5% marks on the basis of physically handicapped certificate produced by her, whereas Mamina Ojha (petitioner in WP (C) No. 10472 of 2012) secured 59.13% including 5% marks on the basis of her qualification, and as such, Mamina Ojha was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Challenging the said selection, Rashmiprava Moharana filed Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 17 of 2010 before the opposite party No. 1 on the ground that Mamina Ojha could not have been awarded 5% extra marks for her higher qualification as she had not submitted the said certificate along with the application form, rather it was submitted at the time of filing objection. Went through the impugned order. It appears that in the aforesaid appeal, appellant, Rashmiprava Moharana is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12311 of 2012 and respondent No. 2 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10472 of 2012. Opp Party No. 1 vide order dated 24.05.2012 disposed of Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 17 of 2010 by setting aside the selection of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Odiso (Kha) (i) Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block and directed the CD.P.O., Jagatsinghpur to prepare a merit list ignoring the higher educational qualification of respondent No. 2 (Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10472 of 2012) and also the Physical handicapped certificate of appellant (petitioner No. W.P. (C) No. 12322 of 2012) and to convene a Selection Committee for the aforesaid purpose within one month from receipt of the said order as physical handicapped certificate issued by the Professor and H.O.D. Orthopedic of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack reveals that Rashmiprava Moharana suffered 15% disability instead of 40%, and as such, her extra qualification of 5% is to be ignored. The A D.M. also in his order stated that Mamina Ojha has not produced the certificate with regard to her higher qualification at the time of submission of application, and accordingly, the percentage of marks given to her on the basis of higher education was beyond the period of filing of application. Therefore, the extra 5% marks given to her is to be ignored also. As per Clause-3 of the Revised Guidelines of the Government dated 2.5.2007 for selection of Anganwadi Worker, the minimum educational qualification is Matriculate. However, in the ITDA and MADA areas, if no matriculate candidate is available, the educational qualification 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 will be given to the following categories. 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. Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste Widow 10% (only in rural and urban areas) Unmarried women above 35 Years 10% Orphan girl (in which case Relaxation in nativity can be given 5% Physical Handicapped Women 5% Destitute/Deserted women 5% If the candidate is intermediate of equivalent or has higher qualification 5% In the aforesaid guidelines, it has not been specifically fixed the percentage of physical handicapness to be considered. Since the post of Anganwadi Worker is not a civil post and the Anganwadi Worker has to get only honorarium for working as volunteers, the percentage of physical handicapness is not applicable for engagement of Anganwadi Worker. If a candidate is physically handicapped, she is entitled to 5% extra mark as per the above guidelines and the Selection Committee has to follow the guidelines. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority is not sustainable. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by learned Addl. District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur(opp. party No. 1) in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 17 of 2010 and directs the Selection Committee to issue engagement order in favour of the candidate having possessed higher percentage of marks immediately. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of." In compliance of said order, the CDPO, Jagatsinghpur passed the order dated 12.03.2013 conforming the appointment of opposite party No. 3, which has been annexed as Annexure-7, which is under challenge before this Court. 8. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Diptimayee Parida (supra), wherein the appointment of Anganwadi Worker was under challenge and the apex Court found that qualification or extra qualification laid down for recruitment should ordinarily be considered on the last date of filing the application. In the said judgment reliance has also been placed in the judgment of the apex Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153 and Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168. In paragraphs-15 and 16 of the judgment the apex Court specifically observed as follows: 15. In the said judgment reliance has also been placed in the judgment of the apex Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153 and Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168. In paragraphs-15 and 16 of the judgment the apex Court specifically observed as follows: 15. This Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [ (2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 244 : (2008) 4 Scale 580 ] held: (SCC p. 161, para 24) "24. ... appellant, however, has filed a writ application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus. He, therefore, must establish existence of a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the State. If he did not possess the requisite qualification to hold a post, he could not have any legal right to continue. It was, therefore, immaterial as to why and when the said proceeding had been initiated against him." 16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L & S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] stating: (SCC p. 175, para 10) "10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed." 9. In view of such position, this Court is of the considered view that since the opposite party No. 3 has produced her certificate of acquisition of higher qualification at the time of scrutiny but not at the time of submission of application, the same should not have been taken into consideration by the authority. If the extra 5% marks would be taken into consideration, so far as physical handicapped category is concerned, then the petitioner having secured 55.93% of marks she should have been selected and given an appointment order as Anganwadi Worker instead of opposite party No. 3, because the extra 5% marks given to opposite party No. 3 for acquisition of higher qualification if deducted/excluded, she cannot be eligible for such appointment. 10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed on 13.03.2013 in Annexure-7 allowing the opposite party No. 3 to continue as Anganwadi Worker cannot sustain in the eye of law. The same is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. Consequentially, the petitioner having secured higher percentage of marks than opposite party No. 3, she is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Odiso (Kha) (i) [Odiso B(i)] Anganwadi Centre. The same is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. Consequentially, the petitioner having secured higher percentage of marks than opposite party No. 3, she is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Odiso (Kha) (i) [Odiso B(i)] Anganwadi Centre. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 2 is directed to give fresh appointment order in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order. 11. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order to costs.