JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - Sujata Sahu, who was respondent no.2 in Misc. Appeal Case No.2 of 2017 before Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, has filed W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2018 with the following relief: 'The petitioner above named, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order dated 25.01.2018 under Annexure-1 shall not be quashed; If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, Your Lordships may be pleased to quash the order dated 25.01.2018 under Annexure-1;' 2. Mamatarani Gantayat, who was appellant in M.C. Appeal Case No.2 of 2017 before Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, has filed W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 with the following relief: 'Under the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, this petitioner humbly prays before this Hon'ble Court to quash the order of O.P. No-3 directing to make notification clearly mentioning the location of the area of AWW Centre and selection thereof afresh. And this Hon'ble Court may issue necessary direction to engage the present petitioner in the said post as she was the only applicant for the post of AWW Centre of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur). And further be pleased to pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, as would be deemed fit and proper in favour favour of the petitioner by this Hon'ble Court.' 3. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the common judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.2 of 2017, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Rangeilunda issued an advertisement on 15.12.2016 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in respect of five Anganwadi Centres and the present case relates to Sl. No.3, Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, the service area of which covers Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC Colony & Hill top streets, which according to central survey is in between 1st house-Bichindra Charan Sahu and last house- Bijaya Kumar Sahu. No.3, Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, the service area of which covers Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC Colony & Hill top streets, which according to central survey is in between 1st house-Bichindra Charan Sahu and last house- Bijaya Kumar Sahu. 4.1 In response to such advertisement, the petitioners in both the writ petitions applied for the said post, selection to which was conducted taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha in Woman and Child Development Department vide letter No.145/W&CD dated 02.05.2007. As per Clause-2 of the advertisement, a candidate must have belonged to Anganwadi Centre area and, as such, she has to produce resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar within six months. Minimum qualification was prescribed as matriculation and age should be within 18 to 42 years as on 01.01.2016. As per clause-10 of the advertisement, if the applicant is an ST/SC/P.H/Orphan/widow/destitute unmarried girl (above 35 years of age), necessary certificates to that extent would be produced. Apart from these, all other conditions of the advertisement were to be satisfied in inconsonance with the guidelines issued by the Government. By following due procedure of selection, Sujata Sahu (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5722 of 2018) was selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre. 4.2 The selection and engagement of said Sujata Sahu (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5722 of 2018) was challenged by Mamatarani Gantayat (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018) before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6759 of 2017 and this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 24.02.2017, directed that if the petitioner therein filed an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of the order, the appellate authority would do well to dispose of the same, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within a period of six months. In compliance thereof, Mamatarani Gantayat filed M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017 before the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, who, vide order dated 25.01.2018, disposed of the said appeal holding that the advertisement published vide no.858 dated 15.12.2016 for Anganwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) was defective, as there was no specific mention that the street, where Sujata Sahu was residing, i.e., Bazar Sahi, also comes within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. Thereby, he cancelled the said advertisement dated 15.12.2016, so far it relates to Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, so also the selection of Sujata Sahu as Anganwadi Worker, and directed the CDPO, Rangeilunda to make the notification clearly mentioning the location of the area of Anganwadi Centre afresh and make the selection afresh accordingly keeping in view of government guidelines. Hence these applications. 5. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Sujata Sahu in W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2018 contended that the notification issued on 15.12.2016 by the CDPO, Rangeilunda clearly indicates that the Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre service area covers Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC Colony & Hill top streets, which according to central survey is in between 1st house-Bichindra Charan Sahu and last house- Bijaya Kumar Sahu, within which Bazar Sahi is also coming, though the same has not been specifically mentioned in the notification. As the service area has been defined in column-4 of the advertisement, there is no dispute or ambiguity with regard to the fact that Bazar Sahi comes within the service area of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre. It is further contended that each and every street (sahi) need not be included in the advertisement. Rather, the mention so made, that the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question, according to central survey, stretched from the 1st house-Bichindra Charan Sahu till the last house-Bijaya Kumar Sahu, clearly indicates that Bazar Sahi, where house of Sujata Sahu situates, comes in between the same. Thereby, the selection has been done by the authority in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha. Consequentially, the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, cancelling the selection of Sujata Sahu as Anwanwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur), without considering the above fact, cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sanjulata Behera v. Additional District Magistrate (W.A. No.420 of 2015 disposed of on 20.08.2015). 6. Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mamatarani Gantayat-petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 contended that the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam has committed gross error by giving direction to go for fresh selection on the plea that Anganwadi Centre area has not been properly defined in the advertisement issued. 6. Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mamatarani Gantayat-petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 contended that the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam has committed gross error by giving direction to go for fresh selection on the plea that Anganwadi Centre area has not been properly defined in the advertisement issued. But fact remains, by indicating the area itself in the advertisement, the selection has been done and in the event Sujata Sahu does not come within the Anganwadi Centre area, Mamatarani Gantayat being stood at sl.no.2 of the select list, she should be given appointment instead of going for fresh advertisement. Thereby, seeks for quashing of the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017. 7. Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate argued with vehemence supporting the order impugned passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017 and contended that since Bazar Sahi was not indicated in the advertisement, the selection of Sujata Sahu cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam has rightly issued direction to go for fresh selection. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of both the writ petitions. 8. This Court heard Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Sujata Sahu in W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2018, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Mamatarani Gantayat-petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for State opposite parties in both the cases. Since it is a certiorari proceeding, learned counsel for the parties consented to dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions at the stage of admission without filing counter and rejoinder affidavits in the case itself. 9. The facts narrated above are undisputed. Admittedly, the CDPO, Rangeilunda had issued a notification dated 15.12.2016 for selection of Anganwadi workers in respect of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre so also four other Anganwadi Centres. In both the writ petitions dispute relates to Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, the service area of which includes Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC colony & Hill top, and according to central survey it stretches from 1st house-Bichindra Charan Sahu to the last house-Bijaya Kumar Sahu. In both the writ petitions dispute relates to Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, the service area of which includes Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC colony & Hill top, and according to central survey it stretches from 1st house-Bichindra Charan Sahu to the last house-Bijaya Kumar Sahu. The selection committee meeting was held on 27.03.2017 under the chairmanship of the Sub-Collector, Berhampur to consider the case of only two applicants, namely, Sujata Sahu and Mamatarani Gantayat, who had filed their applications, pursuant to advertisement, for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2(Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre. But, on the basis of objection filed by Mamatarani Gantayat and one M. Pabitra Kumar Patra, the Sub-Collector-cum-Chairman of the selection committee ordered for a joint enquiry to be conducted by SSSO & Lady Supervisor, who, in turn, reported that Sujata Sahu was residing in the Main Road-2 Anganwadi Centre area, but did not care to mention the exact location, where Sujata Sahu was residing, out of the four locations, i.e. Gandhi Nagar, Mother Teressa Nagar, NAC Colony and Hill Top area, which have been mentioned in the notification to be the service area. Admittedly, Bazar Sahi comes within the Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre service area. Therefore, on the basis of joint enquiry report, the selection committee selected Sujata Sahu, who had secured highest mark among two candidates, as Anganwadi Worker of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre. 10. The appellate authority, namely, theAdditional District Magistrate, Ganjam had also directed the CDPO, Rangeilunda to make an enquiry and report about the residence of Sujata Sahu. Consequentially, the CDPO, Rangeilunda caused an enquiry and submitted a report, along with the map showing the location of residence of Sujata Sahu and other locations mentioned in the notification. In such report, the CDPO has mentioned that the house of Sujata Sahu belonged to Bazar Sahi, which comes within the Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre area. But said Bazar Sahi does not find place in the notification as one of the locations of the service area. It is clearly stated in the notification that the service area relates to Gandhi Nagar, Mother Teressa Nagar, NAC Colony and Hill Top area. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellate authority cancelled the selection without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. It is clearly stated in the notification that the service area relates to Gandhi Nagar, Mother Teressa Nagar, NAC Colony and Hill Top area. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellate authority cancelled the selection without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. Accordingly, in the notification non-mentioning of Bazar Sahi, which is well within the Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre area, cannot disentitle Sujata Sahu to continue as Anganwadi Worker. The joint enquiry report submitted before the selection committee read with enquiry report submitted before the appellate authority conjointly indicate that Sujata Sahu is residing within the Anganwadi Centre area, as per description made in the advertisement issued, which contains that service area, according to central survey, stretches from 1st house- Bichindra Charan Sahu till the last house- Bijaya Kumar Sahu. Once Sujata Sahu resides within the Anganwadi Centre area, even if the location, i.e., Bazar Sahi, where she resides, is not mentioned in the advertisement, since on enquiry the fact finding authorities have come to a conclusion that she is residing within the same area, the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam should not have passed the order impugned cancelling her selection and issuing direction to go for fresh selection. Thereby, the order dated 25.01.2018 so passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 11. By virtue of interim order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.4876 of 2018 arising out of W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2018 direction was given that any development pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-1 shall remain subject to the result of the writ petition. Since this Court comes to a definite conclusion that the selection of Sujata Sahu is well justified, as she evidently resides within the Anganwadi Centre service area, pursuant to joint enquiry report submitted by SSSO & Lady Supervisor and subsequent report submitted by the CDPO, she shall continue as Anganwadi Worker of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, against which post she has been duly selected and appointed. 12. In the result, therefore, W.P.(C) No. 5722 of 2018 is allowed. 12. In the result, therefore, W.P.(C) No. 5722 of 2018 is allowed. But, so far as W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 is concerned, as the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017 has been quashed and Sujata Sahu has been allowed to continue as Anganwadi Worker, the said writ petition filed by Mamatarani Gantayat does not merit consideration and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.