JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by opposite party No. 2-Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 66 of 2010 in Annexure-4 and also selection of opposite party No. 4 as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-1 dated 11.10.2010. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that pursuant to advertisement issued by C.D.P.O., Dhamnagar for engagement of anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi Centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat, petitioner and opposite party No. 4 submitted their applications. Opposite party No. 4 submitted her application on 09.12.2009, i.e., the last date of submission. In column-9 of the said application form, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, opposite party No. 4 has given tick mark that she belonged to physically handicapped category. In the list of documents, which was duly acknowledged by the authority on the very same day, i.e., 09.12.2009, at serial No. 7(a) a tick mark was given that opposite party No. 4 has produced the certificate with regard to fact that she belonged to physically handicapped category. But, the document in Annexure-3 clearly indicates that the District Medical Board, Bhadrak issued disability certificate on 10.12.2009, which was one day after the last date of submission of application form, i.e., 09.12.2009 and, as such, taking into consideration such disability certificate, opposite party No. 4 was selected and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Hence this application. 3. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as petitioner had secured higher percentage of marks than opposite party No. 4, she should have been selected and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat, but the opposite parties, by showing favour to opposite party No. 4, have engaged her, even though she produced disability certificate on 10.12.2009, i.e., one day after the last date of submission of application form It is further contended that even though opposite party No. 4 had secured less mark than petitioner, but the authorities, accepting the undertaking given by opposite party No. 4 and taking advantage of her disability certificate, awarded 5 extra marks to her, as a result of which she could come out successful and was engaged as anganwadi worker in the anganwadi centre in question, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. Though the petitioner preferred appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak in Anganwadi Appeal No. 66 of 2010, the contention, that disability certificate was submitted by the petitioner beyond the last date of submission of application, was not taken into consideration and, as such, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2011, which is sought to be challenged in this application. To substantiate the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2011 . 4. Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel admitted the fact that opposite party No. 4 submitted her application form on the last date, i.e., 09.12.2009, and that she furnished an undertaking that she belonged to physically handicapped category and she was called upon to appear before the medical board on 10.12.2010, as the Government had fixed 10th of each month for examination of physically handicapped persons for issue of certificate and she would submit the certificate within the last date of submission of application or verification of certificate on 17.12.2009. It is contended that opposite party No. 4 submitted such certificate on 11.12.2009 after the last date of submission of application. It is contended that opposite party No. 4 submitted such certificate on 11.12.2009 after the last date of submission of application. But since opposite party No. 4 had given undertaking that she belonged to physically handicapped category and would furnish the certificate later, considering the same she was awarded 5 extra marks and she, having secured higher marks than the petitioner, was selected and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Dajpur Gram Panchayat. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in issuing such engagement order in favour of opposite party No. 4. 5. Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4 has also adopted the contention raised by learned Addl. Standing Counsel and contended that in fact opposite party No. 4 was granted with the disability certificate on 10.12.2009 and on being produced by her the same was received by the authority after the last date of submission of application form. Therefore, considering such certificate, the authority selected opposite party No. 4 and gave her engagement as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat and, as such, opposite party No. 4 is still continuing in the said post. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage 6. This Court heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel; and Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4; and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission, 7. The facts as delineated above are undisputed. Admittedly, the last date of submission of application form was 09.12.2009 and on the very same day, opposite party No. 4 submitted her application form, as is revealed from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the said application form, opposite party No. 4 described herself as a physically handicapped candidate by giving tick mark at serial No. 9. The said application form was received by the authority on the very same day, i.e., 09.12.2009 by providing acknowledgement receipt wherein at clause-7(a) opposite part No. 4 has given tick mark that she belonged to physically handicapped category. The said application form was received by the authority on the very same day, i.e., 09.12.2009 by providing acknowledgement receipt wherein at clause-7(a) opposite part No. 4 has given tick mark that she belonged to physically handicapped category. But no such certificate had been produced by opposite party No. 4 except giving an undertaking that she would produce the certificate later. As the Government has fixed 10th of each month for examination of physically handicapped persons for issue of certificate, she had to face the medical board on 10.12.2009 and in fact opposite party No. 4 faced such board on the date fixed and got the certificate on the very same day and produced the same before the authority. But on the basis of undertaking submitted by opposite party No. 4, her case was taken in to consideration and she was given engagement order. But as a matter of fact that the application did not contain the disability certificate issued by the authority because of the fact that the same was admittedly issued on 10.12.2009, i.e., one day after the last date of submission of application form, which was 09.12.2009. 8. It is profitable to note that the guidelines issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 do not in any manner provide for allowing any candidate to file any undertaking to produce any document after the cut-off date, nor even the selection committee has evolved/approved any such procedure. But due to furnishing of undertaking by opposite party No. 4, her application was accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 65.6% marks whereas opposite party No. 4 secured 61.6% in the H.S.C. examination. But as per the government guidelines, additional five marks were awarded to opposite party No. 4 treating her as a physically handicapped candidate. Thereby, she was qualified and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat. But it cannot be denied that by the time opposite party No. 4 submitted her application form she had not furnished the disability certificate granted by the competent authority. Thereby, the application form submitted by opposite party No. 4 being defective, it should not have been entertained by the authority nor any undertaking should have been accepted by the authority, particular when the Government guidelines do not so postulate. 9. Thereby, the application form submitted by opposite party No. 4 being defective, it should not have been entertained by the authority nor any undertaking should have been accepted by the authority, particular when the Government guidelines do not so postulate. 9. In Bhupinderpal Singh (supra), the apex Court in paragraph-13 ruled as follows:- "Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr. JT 1997 (4) SC 99; A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors. 1990 (4) SLR 235 ; The Distt. Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram and Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (4) SLR 237 ; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. JT 1993 (1) SC 220; Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (2) SCC 429 ; and U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Alpana JT 1994 (1) SC 94, the High Court has held (i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then, such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications, ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice." 10. It has been specifically stated by the apex Court that if there was no such date of appointment then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date of appointment by which the application has to be received by the competent authority. It has been specifically stated by the apex Court that if there was no such date of appointment then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date of appointment by which the application has to be received by the competent authority. Therefore, in absence of any rules and guidelines or materials on record, the last date of submission of application by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority, being 09.10.2009, by that time the petitioner had not produced the disability certificate, thereby she herself incurs disqualification for submission of application, which ought not have been taken into consideration by the authority. Learned Addl. District Magistrate, while considering the appeal in Annexure-4, has lost sight of this fact. Therefore, order so passed in Annexure-4 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, engagement of opposite party No. 4 also cannot sustain and the same is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to take necessary steps with regard to engagement of anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat taking into consideration the selection made pursuant to the application submitted by 09.12.2009 in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of four months from the date of passing of this judgment. 11. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no-order as to cost.