JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the advertisement dated 27.05.2017 in Annexure-8 and order dated 19.08.2017 in Annexure-12 passed by the Collector, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 29.05.2017, in pursuance of the order dated 07.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10704 of 2017. 2. In view of the guidelines as well as circular issued by Government of Odisha from time to time, taking into consideration the growth of population, additional anganwadi centres were created. Accordingly, Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre was carved out of Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre. The total population of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre is 534 and the service area of the said anganwadi centre starts from house No. 1 to 50 and from house No. 278 to 300. The Project Level Coordination Committee (PLCC), which is the competent authority, in its meeting carved out the above area to be the service area in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre. There are only two anganwadi centres, i.e. Bhanupur-I and Bhanupur-II within Baliapal Block under the ICDS Project. The advertisement issued on 12.04.2017 in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre was cancelled by the authorities with a view to once again verify the service area in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre, which was carved out of Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre Consequentially, a detailed survey was done on 08.05.2017 as per the recommendation of the PLCC on 30.01.2015. The advertisement which was issued on 27.05.2017 is based on proper survey of area and the selection process was continued pursuant to such advertisement. Being aggrieved by issuance of the advertisement dated 27.05.2017 in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre and consequential rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the Collector, Balasore vide order dated 19.08.2017 in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 under Annexure-12, in pursuance of the order dated 07.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10704 of 2017, this application has been filed. 3. Mr. J.K. Mishra-2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that an advertisement was issued on 27.05.2017 for engagement of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre, pursuant to which though selection has been done, the petitioner and other eligible candidates were deprived of submitting their applications. Agitating the same, the petitioner filed representation before the Collector, Balasore, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017. Agitating the same, the petitioner filed representation before the Collector, Balasore, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017. But the same having not been considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10704 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.06.2017 directing the Collector, Balasore to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as narrated in the representation dated 29.05.2017, and take a final decision thereon as appropriate. The said representation having been rejected, vide order dated 19.08.2017 by the Collector, Balasore in Annexure-12, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ application. 4. Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Addl. Government Advocate argued with vehemence and contended that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by giving distorted facts. As such, Bhanupur-III anganwadi centre area has not yet come into existence Bhanupur anganwadi centre was carved out as Bhanupur-I and Bhanupur-II anganwadi centres under Baliapal Block. In order to fill up the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre, an advertisement was issued on 12.04.2017, but the same was cancelled by the authority with a view to verify the service area of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre, which was carved out of Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre. Accordingly, a detailed survey was done on 08.05.2017 by the anganwadi worker of Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre, along with the CDPO and Supervisor of Baliapal, as per recommendation of the PLCC on 30.01.2015. Pursuant to such survey, the advertisement was issued on 27.05.2017 to fill up the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre. The petitioner knowing fully well, that she does not come under the anganwadi centre area of Bhanupur-II, did not submit her application for the said post. Therefore, at her behest, the present application is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed with cost, as the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by giving distorted facts, and as such the Collector, while considering her representation dated 29.05.2017, in pursuance of order dated 07.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 10704 of 2017, has rightly rejected the same vide order dated 19.08.2017. It is further contended that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, for which the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 5. Ms. It is further contended that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands, for which the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 5. Ms. S. Mohapatra; learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 5 contended that opposite party No. 5, being aspirant for the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre, is a necessary party to the proceeding as her interest is likely to be affected by the result of this writ petition, and she adopts the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State opposite parties. It is further contended that the petitioner, being not an applicant for the post of anganwadi worker in respect of the anganwadi centre in question, is trying to stall the selection process by instituting multiple litigations. Therefore, the Collector, Balasore visualizing the intention of the petitioner, vide order impugned, has rightly rejected her representation, which need not be interfered with at this stage. 6. This Court heard Mr. J.K. Mishra Mishra-2, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties; and Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 5; and perused the record. Since pleadings have been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. A glimpse over the factual scenario, as delineated above, would indicate that Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre under Baliapal ICDS Project was carved out of Bhanupur-I in view of the guidelines and circular issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Odisha from time to time taking into consideration the growth of population. The total population of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre area was 534. As Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre area was found to be not carved out properly, the advertisement dated 12.04.2017 was cancelled by the authority with a view to verify once again the service are of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre. Accordingly, on 08.05.2017, a detailed survey was once again done by the anganwadi worker of Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre, along with the CDPO and supervisor of Baliapal, as per the recommendation of PLCC dated 30.01.2015. The new Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre was carved out taking into consideration house Nos. 1 to 50 and house Nos. 270 to 300 and the same was duly approved by the PLCC. The new Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre was carved out taking into consideration house Nos. 1 to 50 and house Nos. 270 to 300 and the same was duly approved by the PLCC. The petitioner, being a resident of Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre area having house No. 210, is entitled to the benefits under the said centre, i.e., Bhanupur-I anganwadi centre. In other words, as the house of the present petitioner does not fall within the service area of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre, she is not entitled to be considered in respect of the said centre, pursuant to advertisement dated 27.05.2017. Therefore, being aware of the said fact, the petitioner has not submitted her application for the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre. 8. Apart from what has been stated above, it is evident from the pleadings available in the writ petition that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has given distorted facts, which clearly indicates that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner herself admitted in paragraph-17 of the writ petition to the following effect:- ".......After completion two time cancelled the advertisement and again at the pressure of ruling party political leader has published the advertisement on 27.05.2017 by including the Anganwadi Centre-3 and 1 area and houses by deleting the Bhanupur-II Anganwadi Area and houses as a result of which the petitioner and other eligible candidates are deprived for submitting application............" The above pleadings would clearly indicate that the petitioner was not an applicant, pursuant to advertisement dated 27.05.2017, and more so she does not belong to Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre area. Therefore, it can be safely inferred, as she knew that she was not eligible, she had not made application for the said post. Thereby, at her behest, the present writ petition cannot sustain. 9. Furthermore, the petitioner filed a representation on 29.05.2017 before the Collector, Balasore which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 When the same was not attended to, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10704 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.06.2017 directing the Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner. 9. Furthermore, the petitioner filed a representation on 29.05.2017 before the Collector, Balasore which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2017 When the same was not attended to, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10704 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.06.2017 directing the Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the Collector, by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties, including opposite party No. 5, passed order on 19.08.2017, the operative part of which runs as follows:- ".....Perused the report submitted by the CDPO, Baliapal vide her letter No. 1364 dated 16.08.2017. The CDPO has stated that the enumeration for fixation of service area of Bhanupur-II AWC has been made from the house, i.e., house No. 1 of Jagendra Behera up to house No. 49 of Balaram Behera and towards north from house No. 50 of Chittranjan Jena to house No. 278 of Ajay Biswal and from house No. 279 of Barendra Behera up to house No. 300 of Ajay Sethi. Also, it is stated that the said fixation of service area has been duly approved by the Sub-collector, Balasore-cum-Chairman, PLCC. It is further stated that for the process of fixation of service area of Bhanupur-II AWC due formalities have been maintained. Having heard the Counsels for the parties and on perusal of said report of CDPO, Baliapal, it is seen that contiguous houses have been included in the service area for benefit small children and mothers to attend the centre. It is apparent that no irregularity has been made in fixation of service area of Bhanupur-II AWC as published in the notification dated 16.05.2017 for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Bhanupur-II, AWC." 10. At this stage, it is of relevance to indicate, in order to find out the correctness of the allegation made by the petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 27.07.2019, directed the State Counsel to produce the relevant file before this Court in order to ascertain as to whether application of the petitioner for the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre is available or not. In compliance thereof, learned State Counsel produced the concerned file, from which it appears that the petitioner had not applied for the said post and, as such, her application is not available on relevant file. In compliance thereof, learned State Counsel produced the concerned file, from which it appears that the petitioner had not applied for the said post and, as such, her application is not available on relevant file. Therefore, in view of the reasons assigned by the Collector in its order dated 19.08.2017, this Court is of the considered view that rejection of the representation of the petitioner dated 29.05.2017 is well justified and does not require any interference. 11. As regards expressing distorted facts before the Court and not approaching with clean hands, in R. v. Kensington, Income Tax Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486 at page 506, it has been held as follows: "The prerogative writ is not a matter of course; the applicant must come in the manner prescribed and must be perfectly frank and open with the Court." 12. In State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781 , the apex Court refused to grant relief on the ground that the applicant has misled the Court. 13. In Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar, AIR 1994 SC 579 , the apex Court held that a writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. 14. Taking into consideration the above judgments, this Court, in Netrananda Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2018 (II) OLR 436 , came to a conclusion in paragraph-26 of the said judgment and held as under:- ".............For suppression of facts and having not approached this Court with a clean hand, the encroacher is not entitled to get any relief, particularly when the valuable right accrued in favour of the petitioner is being jeopardized for last 43 years for no fault of him, on which this Court takes a serious view........." 15. Therefore, applying the above ratio to the present case, this Court is of the considered view that by giving distorted facts the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and, as such, she has not come to this Court with clean hands. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief. 16. In the result therefore, scrutinizing the matter both factually and legally, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 17. Before parting with the case, this Court feels it apposite to mention that while entertaining this writ petition, vide order dated 26.09.2017 in Misc. 16. In the result therefore, scrutinizing the matter both factually and legally, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 17. Before parting with the case, this Court feels it apposite to mention that while entertaining this writ petition, vide order dated 26.09.2017 in Misc. Case No. 17836 of 2017, this Court passed interim order that the selection process for the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Bhanupur-II anganwadi centre under the CDPO, Baliapal may continue, but result thereof shall not be published without leave of this Court. Thereafter, even if the selection process continued, but no final order has been passed till date. Therefore, this Court directs the opposite party-authorities to publish the result of the selection held, pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.05.2017, and take follow up action in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production/communication of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. The case record produced before this Court be returned to Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate forthwith.