JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J. — Petitioner in this case assails the order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak on dated 12.12.2008 in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9420 of 2008.”

2. Petitioner was an applicant for being engaged as Angan¬wadi Worker with respect to Kaupur, Belagadia Anganwadi Centre, district, Bhadrak. Her application was accepted and in the short list her name was reflected, but finally her candi¬dature was rejected on the ground that she does not reside in the service area of the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre. Thereafter, she preferred a writ application before this Court, which was dis¬posed of directing the Collector, Bhadrak to enquire into the matter and to decide, if irregularity, as alleged, has been committed and to pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law and the guidelines.

Further case of the petitioner is that she has obtained the maximum marks in the HSC Examination among the applicants, and therefore, she is most eligible to be selected as Anganwadi Worker for the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre. It is further contend¬ed that though the Anganwadi Centre area has been notified, it has been done with material irregularities by picking and choos¬ing only to exclude her from zone of consideration. The petition¬er also challenges the legality of imposing condition of nativity within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. So, two essen¬tial questions arise in this case, namely, whether the condition of nativity is bad being ultra vires of Article 16 of the Consti¬tution of India, and secondly, whether the authorities were correct in preparing the service area of this particular Anganwa¬di Centre.

3. This Court in Chandramani Jena and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2007 (II) OLR 577 has held that the State has no right to make law restricting appointment on the ground of residence. The aforesaid decision of this Court relates to selec¬tion of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak. In the advertisement it was stipulated that applicants should be the resident of the block in question. The Division Bench ruled that the State has no right to make a law restricting the appointment on the ground of resi¬dence. The Court further ruled that in policy matters Court has to be slow and circumspect before interfering with the same but the Government’s right to frame a policy is always subject to constitutional mandate. If the complaint is that the mandate is flouted, then only the Court, which can examine the same and the Court is duty bound to do so. Observing thus the Division Bench of this Court has held that stipulation of residence within the block area as a criterion for applying as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak is bad as it is barred under Articles 16(2) of the Con¬stitution of India, 1949.

4. It is observed here that an Anganwadi Worker is not a Civil Post but rather is a volunteer. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. Ameerbi and others, (2007)11 Supreme Court Cases 681, has held that the post of Anganwadi Workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists a relationship between employer and employee and between the State and the Anganwadi Workers. But it is another thing to say that they are holders of civil posts. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the presence of the Anganwadi Worker in their respective villages is extremely important. They are supposed to make sig¬nificant contribution to the society. They are required to carry out a large number of activities primarily for well being and welfare of the children. Further, it is noted that Anganwadi Workers do not carry out any functions of the State. They do not hold post under any statute. Their posts are not created. The Supreme Court further held that the recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the Consti¬tutional scheme of