JUDGMENT : P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Despite giving opportunity to the 10th respondent – Radha Kumari. 10th respondent has not appeared. On 29.03.2022 following order was passed: “Service of notice to respondent no. 10 is completed. None appears on behalf of respondent no. 10. In order to give one more opportunity, re-list this matter on 26.04.2022. On the aforesaid date, if there is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 10, in that event respondent no. 10 would be heard ex-parte.” 3. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs: “(i) For issuance of the writ nature of certiorari for quashing the appointment letter dated 15.02.2020 issued under signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimchakbathani by which appointed to the respondent No. 10 on the post of Aganwari Sevika in the Centre No. 188 Ward No. 8 of Gram Panchayat, Sarbahada is without jurisdiction. (ii) For quashing the order bearing Memo No. 103 dated 20.03.2020 passed by C.D.P.O., Khizarsarai by which rejected the application of the petitioner filed against selection of the respondent No. 10. (iii) For issue direction to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Aganwari Sevika on the ground petitioner having better qualification to the respondent No. 10 and she is at serial No. 1 whereas respondent no. 9 at Serial No. 2 of the merit list. (iv) For further give other legal consequential benefit to the petitioner.” 4. Petitioner and 10th respondent – Radha Kumari were candidate for recruitment to the post of Anganwari Sevika in the Aganwari Centre no. 188, Sarbahada Grampanchayat, Ward No. 8. Selecting authority prepared select list in which petitioner and 10th respondent are at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. They have secured aggregate percentage of marks i.e 64.03 and 51. The 10th respondent was selected for the post of Anganwari Sevika by the Aam Sabha, thereafter, order of appointment was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer -5th respondent on 15.02.2020. Petitioner approached C.D.P.O. and petitioner’s application was rejected on 20.03.2020. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointing authority in respect of Anganwari Sevika in terms of Clause 9 of the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 is the Mahila Supervisor, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer – respondent No. 5 is not the competent authority. Therefore, appointing 10th respondent is without authority of law. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointing authority in respect of Anganwari Sevika in terms of Clause 9 of the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 is the Mahila Supervisor, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer – respondent No. 5 is not the competent authority. Therefore, appointing 10th respondent is without authority of law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State resisted the contention and submitted that the 8th respondent Mahila Supervisor has initiated the notings in respect of order of appointment. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as C.D.P.O. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Crux of the matter in the present petition is whether Sub-Divisional Officer -5th respondent is competent authority to issue order of appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika or not? 9. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as C.D.P.O. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Crux of the matter in the present petition is whether Sub-Divisional Officer -5th respondent is competent authority to issue order of appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika or not? 9. Clause 9 of the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 reads as under: ^^9- vke lHkk & vkaxuckM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk ds p;u ds fy, izdkf'kr foKkiu es fu/kkZfjr frfFk ,oa LFky ij vkelHkk p;u lfefr ds v/;{k dh v/;{krk esa dh tk;xhA v/;{k dh vuqifLFkfr es mik/;{k dh v/;{krk es vke lHkk dh tk;xh ,oa bldks fofM;ksxzkQh djk;h tk;sxhA lsfodk@lgkf;dk ds p;u gsrq vkosnu irj izkfIr ds i'pkr ,d lIrkg ds vnaj lacf/kr efgyk i;Zosf{kdk ,oa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh ds la;qDr gLrk{kj ls ,d vkSicaf/kd es/kk lwph dk izdk'ku ftys ds osclkbZV@cky fodkl ifj;ksTkuk dk;kZy;@iz[kaM dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iVV ij ,d lIrkg ds fy, fd;k tk,xk] rRi'pkr vke lHkk es ;fn nkok@vkifŸk izkIr gksrh gS rks vke lHkk es gh mldk fujkdj.k fd;k tk,xkA vke lHkk es p;u ds dje esa loksZPp Eks/kk vad dk izfr'kr okys vH;FkhZ dk p;fur dj p;u i= efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk eqgfjr ,oa gLrk{kfjr dj LFky ij gh fuxZr fd;k tk;sxkA ftldh ,d izfr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; es jf{kr dh tk;sxhA es/kk vad dk izfr'kr leku gksus ij vf/kd mez ds vH;FkhZ dks izkFkfedrk nh tk;sxhA p;u gsrq rS;kj iSuy dh ekU;rk p;u dh frfFk ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k rd ds fy, jgsxhA fo?kok ,oa fnO;kax dh es/kk vad ds izfr'kr esa ikap ¼5½ vad tksM+ dj es/kk vad dh x.kuk dh tk;sxhA ¼U;wure fnO;kaxrk 40 izfr'kr gksuh pkfg,sA l{ke ijkf/kdkj ls fuxZr fnO;kaxrk izek.k i= gh ekU; gksxkA½ ;fn ckgqY; oxZ ls eSfVªd mŸkhZ.k vkWxuckMh lsfodk ds vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksrs gS tks dekZuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqŒtutkfr@vfr fiNM+k oxZ ¼vYila[;d lfgr½@lkekU; oxZ¼vYila[;d lfgr½ ds mEehnokj dks p;fur fd;k tk;sxkA p;u ds cSBd dh dk;Zokgh dh ewy izfr efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk lacf/kr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; ,oa izfr lacf/kr ftyk izksxkze inkf/kdkjh dk;kZy; es lefiZr fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 10. In the light of the aforesaid Guidelines, the competent authority to appoint Anganwari Sevika is Mahila Supervisor. In the light of the aforesaid Guidelines, the competent authority to appoint Anganwari Sevika is Mahila Supervisor. Merely placing some noting by the Mahila Supervisor that does not give the characteristic of order of appointment, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer who is not at all identified authority under Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 for issuance of order of appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika has issued the order of appointment in favour of the 10th respondent. The same is not appreciated by the C.D.P.O while deciding the petitioner’s application. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the Sub Divisional Officer’s communication in favour of 10th respondent in appointing 10th respondent to the post of Anganwari Sevika in the Aganwari Centre no. 188, Sarbahada Grampanchayat, Ward No. 8. 11. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer’s communication dated 15.02.2020 and C.D.P.O. order dated 20.03.2020 stand set aside. 12. We have not made any observation as to whether the 10th respondent selection was in order or not? If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the fresh order to be passed by the Mahila Supervisor in appointing 10th respondent. He is at liberty to exhaust remedy available under Guidelines dated 27.05.2019, in accordance with law. RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 13. I have the privilege of hearing the order passed by my learned esteemed brother. 14. In fact the only grievance of the petitioner in the case is with respect to issuance of the letter of selection as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. In course of argument while Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer was not competent to issue the letter of selection, learned counsel for the State has repeatedly submitted before this Court that the Sub Divisional Officer was the Chairman of the Aam Sabha in which the selection of the 10th respondent was done. He has further submitted that in fact, the Mahila Supervisor has put her initial on Annexure 3 and because the Sub Divisional Officer was chairing the meeting, therefore, the selection letter has been issued under his signature. 15. He has further submitted that in fact, the Mahila Supervisor has put her initial on Annexure 3 and because the Sub Divisional Officer was chairing the meeting, therefore, the selection letter has been issued under his signature. 15. Learned counsel for the State has thus submitted that mere issuance of selection letter would not render the whole selection process null and void particularly when learned counsel for the petitioner has not at all argued anything against the selection process of the Aam Sabha. In course of argument this Court called upon Mr. Mishra to say anything against the selection process of the Aam Sabha. At that point of time Mr. Mishra did not come out with any argument on that point. At this stage when this Court is dictating the order Mr. Mishra having sensed the trouble initiated his submission that he now wants to make with regard to the deficiency in the selection process. According to him the 10th respondent has been wrongly appointed and the petitioner has been ousted on the ground that the petitioner’s date of birth is 12.07.1978 and that she was working as Asha Worker. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed her application for selection on the post of Sevika giving date of birth as 02.09.1987 and whereas the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.09.1987 as she passed Madhyama Examination on the basis of date of birth on 02.09.1987 and her Adhaar Card and Pan are also showing the date of birth as 02.09.1987. 17. Since nothing was argued against the selection process my brother has rightly not taken note of any such submission in his order. 18. At this stage, what has been argued before this Court has been discussed in the impugned order passed by the Child Development Project Officer (In short ‘C.D.P.O’) as contained in Annexure 7. Admittedly, against Annexure ‘7’ the petitioner has got a right of first appeal before the ‘District Program Officer’ and then a second revisional appeal is provided before the Divisional Commissioner. Admittedly, against Annexure ‘7’ the petitioner has got a right of first appeal before the ‘District Program Officer’ and then a second revisional appeal is provided before the Divisional Commissioner. Under these circumstances when the issues raised by the petitioner may be well taken care of if he prefers appeal against the order of C.D.P.O. before the competent authority in terms of the Rules, I would only consider whether the selection letter as contained in Annexure ‘3’ is liable to be set aside on the solitary ground that it has been issued under signature of the Sub Divisional Officer. 19. To me it appears that mere issuance of selection letter by the Sub Divisional Officer who was chairing the Aam Sabha and which is not in dispute would not render the whole selection process illegal and the appointment of 10th respondent cannot be taken to have been set aside by this Court. In my view, if at all the issuance of selection letter was to be done by the Mahila Parvekshak, it was a case of mere irregularity and in any case the Sub Divisional Officer is a Superior authority and a grievance against this would have been dealt with by the appellate authority as well as revisional appellate authority in terms of the Rules. 20. I would therefore while agreeing with my learned brother to the extent that Annexure 3 may be set aside would observe that setting aside of Annexure 3 in no way shall be taken as interfering with the selection of 10th respondent and it will be taken as a mere irregularity which may be cured by issuing a selection letter under seal and signature of Mahila Parvekshak. After issuance of the said letter by Mahila Parvekshak it will be open for the petitioner to raise her grievance before the appropriate authority/appellate authority, as the case may be, in accordance with the Rules governing the issue. 21. The application stands disposed off, accordingly. P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. 22. The opinion expressed by my brother in respect of irregularity is a curable defect is not acceptable to me for the reasons that Apex Court in the case of Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545 , Paragraph 48 reads as under: “48. 21. The application stands disposed off, accordingly. P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. 22. The opinion expressed by my brother in respect of irregularity is a curable defect is not acceptable to me for the reasons that Apex Court in the case of Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545 , Paragraph 48 reads as under: “48. Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block.” Underline supplied 23. Further Courts have time and again held that Statutory Rules/Executive Orders governing post were required to be adhered. Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Reddy vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2001) 4 SCC 9 , Paragraph 23 it is held as under:- “23. It is settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. This Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Others reported in 1964 AIR SC 358 held that: “A Magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in Section 164. The power to record the confession has obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made made in the manner laid down.” 24. That apart, contention of incompetent authority would go to the root of the matter, when the statute like Guidelines specifically assigned order of appointment to Aganwari Sevika that authority alone is required to exercise, therefore, it is not a curable defect or to rectify the same or it is only irregularity, it is a clear case of violation of the Guidelines in particularly Clause 9. Appointment made in contravention of statutory provisions are void ab initio as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha vs. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan – 2022 Live Law (SC) 393 CA 3036-3064 of 2022, dated 20.04.2022. 25. Further it is to be noted that petitioner is more merited than the 10th respondent. The reasons for non-selection of petitioner is that she had worked as Asha Worker with date of birth as 12.07.1978 and for Anganwari Sevika she has claimed date of birth as 02.09.1987. If the appointing authority disputed date of birth, in that event, she is entitle to notice and other formalities. The aforesaid proceedings are not forthcoming. 26. In the light of the above difference of opinion on the issue or irregularity in appointing 10th respondent by the S.D.O. or not among my learned brother and myself, matter is required to be decided by third member. Let the matter be listed before the third member after obtaining necessary administrative order from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. 27. At this stage my esteemed brother Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad sent a message through his Secretary on gmail of my Personal Assistant and it was brought to my notice, the said message reads as under: “My Lord has seen the re-draft. His Lordship has pointed out that there are substantial addition from paragraph 23 to 25 and it would not be possible to add those paragraphs when the judgment has been dictated in open Court on 27.04.2022.” Since, it is legal issue and only quoting certain decisions of the Apex Court, therefore, matter be listed for further orders.