JUDGMENT

S.K. MISHRA, J. : The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties in canceling the selection process which was initiated under the old Guidelines issued by the State Government in Women and Child Development Department and issuing fresh advertisement on the basis of new Guidelines issued in the year 2007.

2. Pursuant to Advertisement dated 10.04.2006, the peti¬tioner applied for being engaged as Anganwadi worker for Raipur Additional Anganwadi Centre within the jurisdiction of the Child Development Project Officer, Chandbali. The petitioner further claims that as per the list of candidates published on the notice board of the C.D.P.O., Chandbali, the petitioner secured first position. At that stage, opposite party No.4 issued fresh adver¬tisement on 09.07.2007 in canceling the previous advertisement issued on 10.04.2006. The petitioner claimed that the entire selection process could have been completed much before the commencement of the new guideline, but for the latches of the opposite parties, it was intentionally delayed.

3. Being aggrieved by the said Notification, the petition¬er filed W.P.(C) No.11750 of 2007. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed due to non-appearance of the petitioner. When she came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.17200 of 2008. That writ petition ws disposed of with a direction to the Collector to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass necessary orders on the representation filed by the petitioner strictly in consonance with law.

Opposite party No.5 had also filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.12203 of 2008, wherein this Court directed the Collector for publication of the result pursuant to the Adver¬tisement dated 07.09.2007.

While the matter stood thus, the Collector (opp.party No.1) issued notice to the petitioner and the opposite party to remain present on 12.06.2009 in his Court for personal hearing. As per the direction in the said hearing, the petitioner appeared before the Collector and the Collector orally asked the petitioner to submit a note of submission. Petitioner further claims that she was directed to file note of submission on 18.07.2007 alleging that at her back the Collector has passed the order on 12.06.2009 engaging opposite party No.5 as Anganwadi worker for Raipur Anganwadi Centre.

The petitioner claims that once the recruitment process was started in consonance with the guidelines, it cannot be stopped in midway. It is further pleaded that a recruitment process once commenced will have its logical end in consonance with the guide¬lines pursuant to which a notification was issued. That apart, abandoning a recruitment process which commenced earlier and initiating afresh recruitment process would not only be time consuming but also involves huge expenses on the State Exchequer and will also cause prejudice to the persons who had applied in consonance with the notification issued.

On such pleadings, the petitioner prays to cancel the ap¬pointment of opposite party No.5 in pursuance to the order dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure-4) and to direct the opposite parties to engage the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of the said Anganwadi centre.

4. Opposite parties 3 and 4 have filed their written counter, inter alia, leading that the writ application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further submitted that the writ petition involves disputed ques¬tion of facts. The opposite parties disputed that the opposite party No.2 has acted illegally in canceling the selection proc¬ess, which was made under the old guidelines for appointment of Anganwadi Workers and in its place issuing a fresh advertisement on the basis of the new guideline. It is further pleaded that neither any interview was conducted for the said Anganwadi Centre nor selection process had been completed. When the matter stood thus, new guideline came into force. In the said guideline it was menti