The central legal point established in the judgment is that a candidate's residence within the specified service area, as per the advertisement, justifies their selection, even if their specific location is not mentioned in the advertisement.

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.

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