The court determined that an advertisement's qualification criteria were valid as per guidelines, and the rejection of an eligible applicant was unjustified, emphasizing adherence to legal standards without hyper-technicality.

JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking to challenge the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Collector, Rayagada in Misc. Appeal (Anganwadi) Case No.4/2018 whereby, the appeal filed by her was dismissed and the entire selection process undertaken pursuant to notification dated 16.10.2017 was quashed.

2. Relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement was published on 16.10.2017 by the CDPO, Kashipur inviting applications for selection of Anganwadi workers in respect of some Anganwadi Centers. The petitioner and four other persons submitted their applications in respect of Talapadikhal Anganwadi Center. The selection was held on 13.03.2018 by a committee headed by the Sub-Collector in which the petitioner was found to have secured 64% marks whereas Opposite Party No.6 secured 50% marks. Despite having secured higher marks however, the Opposite Party No.6 was selected on the ground that the petitioner is working as Anganwadi Worker in another Anganwadi Centre namely, Sipijodi Centre. Initially, the petitioner submitted objection before the Sub-Collector but no action was taken. She, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Rayagada. Since no action was taken on her appeal, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 9791 of 2018. This Court disposed of the writ application by order dated 27.06.2018 directing the Collector & District Magistrate, Rayagada to register the Anganwadi Appeal and to dispose of the same. As such, the appeal was registered as Misc. Appeal (Anganwadi) Case No. 4 of 2018. After hearing all the parties and on perusal of the relevant materials and documents, the Collector was of the view that the advertisement was defective inasmuch as the minimum qualification was mentioned as Class-VIII even though the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 prescribe the same as Matriculation. The Collector further held that the Opposite Party No.6 had also submitted contradictory proof regarding her date of birth. On such findings, the selection of Opposite Party No.6 was not proper and in view of the defect in the advertisement, the entire selection process was directed to be cancelled. The appeal was thus rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application seeking the following relief:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectively prayed that this Hon'ble court may be graciously pleased to issue RULE NISI" calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why;

i. the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Collector, Rayagada in Misc. Appeal (Anganwadi) Case No- 04/2018 under Annexure-9 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal;

ii. The select list dtd.13.03.2018 under Annexure3 and the notification dtd.22.03.2018 under Annexure-6 shall not be quashed so far it relates to Selection of Anganwadi Worker of Talapadikhal AWC;

iii. The petitioner shall not be selected as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Talapadhikhal AWC under Kasipur ICDS Project in the district of Rayagada as she has secured highest mark in the select list prepared by the selected committee under Annexure-3;

If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute:

And pass any other order/ orders as would be fit deem and proper

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO, Kashipur. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to SC category and is a graduate. She is also working as Anganwadi worker of Sipijodi Anganwadi Centre. The selection committee selected Opp