JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J. - 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

2. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dtd. 5.1.2016 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Nuapada is before this court.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as has been pleaded in the writ petition is that the Child Development Project Officer, Nuapada made an advertisement for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre and in pursuant to the same the petitioner, opposite party No. 5 and another candidate, namely, Son Kumari Dandsena along with three other candidates have participated in the selection process and their candidature has been scrutinized by the selection committee in which it has been found that the petitioner and opposite party No. 5 are not the residents of the Anganwadi Centre area but the other candidate, namely, Son kumara Dandasena even though a resident of the Angangwadi centre but since an O.B.C. candidate, her candidature was not considered.

4. In Kodomeri Grama Panchayat there are three Anganwadi Centres, Kodomeri-I Anganwadi Centre comprises of ward Nos. 4, 7 & 8 and Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre comprises of ward No. 5 & 6 and another centre, i.e. Chuhuri Anganwadi Centre comprises of ward Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and the Kodomeri Grama Panchayat is coming under the MADA area for which only ST and SC candidates are to be appointed and in case of non-availability of ST and SC candidates from the Anganwadi centre area then the candidates from the Grama Panchayat will be taken into consideration.

5. After receipt of the application form the selection committee invited objections with regard to caste, residence and qualification of the candidates and thereafter final merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner being a schedule caste lady having 10+2 qualification and having highest mark than that of opposite party No. 5 was selected as Anganwadi Worker and accordingly appointment order was issued on 25.7.2013 and she joined on 25.7.2013 but her selection and appointment was questioned by opposite party No. 5 before this court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 8873 of 2015 and this court vide order dtd. 17.6.2016 has disposed of the writ petition directing the ADM, Nuapada to dispose of the representation within specific period, accordingly the ADM-cum-Appellate Authority, Nuapada has set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner and directed the CDPO, Nuapada and the selection committee to reconsider the selection of Anganwadi workers of Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre in conformity with the provisions of Government guideline.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the appellate authority has filed this writ petition on the ground that the Kodomeri-II Anganwadi Centre is coming under the MADA area and as per the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government only ST and SC candidates are to be appointed and the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 5 are not residents of the centre are rather residents of the concerned Panchayat and as such the petitioner having secured higher marks and having more qualification than opposite party No. 5 has rightly been selected but the ADM has not considered this aspect of the matter while cancelling her engagement.

7. It has been contended that in the MADA area the guideline provides ST/SC candidates are to be taken into consideration and since the petitioner belongs to SC category hence she is the right candidate to be selected and engaged being more meritorious than opposite party No. 5 who is a member of ST.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is not provided in the guideline that under the MADA area ST candidate will be selected first and in case of nonavailability of ST candidates the SC candidates will be considered rather in the guideline dtd. 2.5.2007 it has been