JUDGMENT B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner-Kapura Murmu, a resident of village-Hidigan, belonging to scheduled tribe community, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.11.2011 in Annexure-1 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore rejecting the representation filed by her in SSW Misc. Case No.12 of 2011 holding that she is not eligible as per government guidelines for engagement as Anganwadi Helper in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Sadar, Balasore issued an advertisement on 04.09.2010 vide Annexure-2 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process for engagement as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre belonging to scheduled caste community. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner, opposite party no.5 and one Kuntala Sheet applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre. As per the rules mentioned in the advertisement, the candidate must belonged to the Anganwadi Centre area and she must be a permanent resident of that area and must produce the certificate from the Tahasildar, which would be valid for a period of six months. The age of the candidate must be between 18 and 42 years, and by 01.01.2010 she should have completed 18 years of age and should not have exceeded 42 years of age. In support of her age, she must produce necessary certificate and also produce the certificates with regard to educational qualification, photo identity card or a certificate from the government doctor with regard to proof of age. It was also mentioned that the candidate would be selected from that category of people the population of which is more in the Anganwadi Centre area, and especially, in case of selection of Anganwadi Helper of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward caste and others, the ORV Act and Rules would be applicable. It was further indicated that preferential treatment would be given to a candidate if she would be widow, deserted, divorced, but to that extent necessary certificate from the competent authority was to be produced. 2.1 The applications of three candidates, who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre, were scrutinized. It was further indicated that preferential treatment would be given to a candidate if she would be widow, deserted, divorced, but to that extent necessary certificate from the competent authority was to be produced. 2.1 The applications of three candidates, who had applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre, were scrutinized. As the scheduled caste community people is more in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre area, as per the guidelines, opposite party no.5, being only candidate from that category, was engaged as Anganwadi Helper after following due procedure. The selection and engagement of opposite party no.5 was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub-Collector, Balasore, by way of representation, which was registered as SSW Misc. Case No. 12 of 2011. The Sub-Collector, Balasore, after giving due opportunity of hearing, came to a define conclusion taking into consideration the proceedings of Mahila Sabha held on 30.12.2010 for selection of Anganwadi Helper in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre, the survey list of Anganwadi Centre area and other allied papers appended to the case record, that in the said Anganwadi Centre area majority of scheduled caste community people are residing. Though the petitioner and opposite party no.5 are resident of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre and the petitioner belonged to scheduled tribe community whereas opposite party no.5 belonged to scheduled caste community, as per the government guidelines, since majority population of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre area belonged to scheduled caste community, the selection of opposite party no.5 is well justified and thereby rejected the representation filed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that engagement of opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre is beyond the government guidelines and, as such, the genuine claim of the petitioner for the said post has been defeated. The petitioner has claimed that engagement of opposite party no.5 cannot sustain in the eye of law, in view of the fact that Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre area having majority population of scheduled tribe community, the candidate belonging to scheduled tribe community was to be selected as Anganwadi Helper, but not from scheduled caste community. The petitioner has claimed that engagement of opposite party no.5 cannot sustain in the eye of law, in view of the fact that Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre area having majority population of scheduled tribe community, the candidate belonging to scheduled tribe community was to be selected as Anganwadi Helper, but not from scheduled caste community. But the learned Sub-Collector, Balasore, while considering the representation of the petitioner, has not applied its mind in proper perspective and relying upon the survey list of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre area, has erroneously come to a finding that the scheduled caste community has majority in the Anganwadi Centre area and that itself based on wrong premises and consequentially the selection of opposite party no.5 belonging to scheduled caste community cannot sustain and the order impugned so passed by the Sub-Collector should be quashed. 4. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties, by admitting the fact that opposite party no.5 belonging to scheduled caste community has been selected and engaged as Anganwadi Helper in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre, contended that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 dated 04.09.2010, it was specifically indicated that in a particular Anganwadi Centre area taking into consideration the majority population of a particular class, specifically Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Caste or others, the candidate would be selected for engagement as Anganwadi Helper. It was further indicated that the selection would be made applying the provisions of ORV Act and Rules framed thereunder. The survey list itself indicates that in Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre area majority of people belonged to scheduled caste community and, therefore, the advertisement was issued inviting applications from the scheduled caste candidates. More so, the petitioner has not challenged the advertisement issued on 04.09.2010 and she, with eyes wide open and knowing fully well, that the scheduled caste population of the said Anganwadi Centre area is more than scheduled tribe population, participated in the process of selection. She, having failed to succeed in the process of selection, challenged the same by approaching the Sub-Collector, Balasore, who, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, having rejected the same, the benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. 5. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties by virtual mode. Since it is a matter of 2012 and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State opposite parties, Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that since it is a certiorari proceeding, the State opposite parties will participate in the process of hearing on the basis of materials available on record, and thereby declined to file any counter affidavit. Though Mr. N. Panda and his associate have entered appearance for opposite party no.5, but they are not present at the time of call nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, as opposite party no.5 steps into shoes of the State. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant any adjournment on that count. In any case, since the State opposite parties, whose order is under challenge, and the petitioner, have consented, the matter is heard at length and is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. In the instant case, admittedly, an advertisement was issued for the post of Anganwadi Helper of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre, vide Annexure-2 dated 04.09.2010, wherein it was specifically mentioned that preference would be given to the candidate belonging to majority in population in the Anganwadi Centre area is more and, as such, the advertisement itself also indicates that so far as Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre is concerned, majority of population belonged to scheduled caste community. Thereby, the advertisement which was issued vide Annexure-2 clearly indicates that candidates belonging to scheduled caste community were to make applications for selection and engagement as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre. The opposite party no.5 belonged to scheduled caste community and, as such, it is admitted that the petitioner belonged to scheduled tribe community. 7. The selection of opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Helper was done, even though majority of women members of Mahila Sabha did not support her, as because in the said Anganwadi Centre area majority of population belonged to scheduled caste community. In the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha held on 30.12.2010, it was found that majority population of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre belonged to scheduled caste community, which is corroborated by the survey list of Anganwadi Centre area. In the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha held on 30.12.2010, it was found that majority population of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre belonged to scheduled caste community, which is corroborated by the survey list of Anganwadi Centre area. Thereby, one suitable scheduled caste candidate was to be engaged in the post of Anganwadi Helper of the said Anganwadi Centre. Kapura Murmu, the petitioner herein, who belonged to scheduled tribe community, was not eligible for the post of Anganwadi Helper. Out of the rest, two scheduled caste candidates, Kuntala Sheet had failed to submit her residential certificate before the competent authority. Therefore, opposite party no.5, who belonged to SC category, was selected for the post of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Hidigan-7 Anganwadi Centre, pursuant to Mahila Sabha held on 30.12.2010. Consequentially, engagement order issued in favour of opposite party no.5 is well justified and the same does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. More so, the Sub-Collector, Balasore, having passed a reasoned and speaking order in Annexure-1, that itself cannot be interfered with. 8. The petitioner, knowing fully well the requirements in the advertisement under Annexure-2 dated 04.09.2010 participated in the process of selection and, therefore, he having become unsuccessful cannot turn around and challenge the same by filing the instant writ petition. 9. The apex Court in Om Prakash Sukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Sukla, (1986) AIR SC 1043 held that when the petitioner therein appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. 10. In Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1995) AIR SC 1088, the apex Court held that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. 11. Similarly, in Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) in paragraphs, 25 to 28, the apex Court held as follows: "25. 11. Similarly, in Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra) in paragraphs, 25 to 28, the apex Court held as follows: "25. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] wherein also a similar stand was taken by a candidate and in that context the Supreme Court had declared that the candidate who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the validity of the said selection process after appearing in the said selection process and taking opportunity of being selected. Para 15 inter alia reads thus: (SCC p. 591) "15. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee." 26. In P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala, (2008) 7 SCC 70 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 225] this Court relying on the above principle held thus: (SCC p. 84, para 44) "44. Apart from the fact that the appellant accepted his posting orders without any demur in that capacity, his subsequent order of appointment dated 15-7-1992 issued by the Governor had not been challenged by the appellant. Once he chose to join the mainstream on the basis of option given to him, he cannot turn back and challenge the conditions. He could have opted not to join at all but he did not do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to clamour regarding the cut-off date or for that matter any other condition. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held that the appellant is estopped and precluded from questioning the said order dated 14-1-1992. The application of principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence has been considered by us in many cases, one of them being G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] ." 27. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] in SCC at para 18 it was held that: (SCC p. 107) "18. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] in SCC at para 18 it was held that: (SCC p. 107) "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same." 28. Besides, in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345] in SCC paras 72 and 74 it was held that the candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel." The above principles have also been reiterated by this Court in Smt. Usha Rani Agarwal v. State of Orissa,2018 2 OrissaLR 294 and Sumanta Kumar Sahoo v. Reserve Bank of India,2020 1 OrissaLR 184. 12. In summing up the principles laid down by the apex Court, as well as this Court, as mentioned above, since the petitioner appeared for interview before the Mahila Sabha, without any protest and, when she was not succeed in the interview, she filed this writ petition challenging the said test, this Court cannot grant any relief to such petitioner, reason being if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or selection committee was not properly constituted. In view of such position, applying the above principle to the present context, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner participated in the process of selection by appearing at the interview without any protest and took a calculated chance and having not come out successful, cannot turn around and say that the selection process was bad and, thereby, at her behest, the present writ petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2011 in Annexure-1 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in SSW Misc. Case No. 12 of 2011. 14. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2011 in Annexure-1 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in SSW Misc. Case No. 12 of 2011. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the judgment available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.