IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 14376 of 2012 Renuka Khara …. Petitioner Ms. N. Afreen, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 01.07.2026 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since on the face of the service of notice on Opposite Party No.6, no appearance has been made, notice against the said Opposite Party is treated as sufficient. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.18.07.2012 so passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order, while allowing the appeal so filed by the private Opposite Party No.6, Opposite Party No.4 set aside the selection and engagement of the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Mathalput, (Tota Sahi) Anganwadi Center. 5. While assailing the impugned order dtd.18.07.2012 so passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-4, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Office of Opposite Party No.5 and the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting chaired by the Sub-Collector, Koraput- Opposite Party No.3 on 23.04.2011, vide order dtd.23.04.2011 of Opposite Party No.5 under Annxure-1, Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Mathalput, (Tota Sahi) Anganwadi Center. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner duly joined in her work as Anganwadi Worker. However, challenging the engagement of the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of the Center in question, private Opposite Party No.6 preferred an appeal in RMC (Appeal) Case No.11/2011. 5.1. It is contended that Opposite Party No.4 only on the ground that in the notification issued by the CDPO inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in various A.W Center coming under ICDS Project, Koraput, basing on which Petitioner was so engaged, since the Center area of the respective A.W Center was not reflected, the notification being a defective one, basing on such notification, Petitioner could have been provided with the order of engagement under Annexure-1. 5.2. It is contended that such a view was taken by the appellate authority –Opposite Party No.4 on the ground that since in Mathalput Village there are 13 A.W Centers, in the notification issued by the CDPO on 07.01.2011 inviting application for the post of A.W Worker in respect of Mathalput, (Tota Sahi) Anganwadi Center, Opposite Party No.5 should have indicated the service area of the Center. Since that was not indicated in the advertisement dtd.07.01.2011,the advertisement being a defective one, basing on such a defective advertisement, Petitioner since has got the benefit of engagement, the same requires interference and accordingly quashed the order of engagement issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-1 and with a direction to issue a fresh advertisement and take step for fresh selection of Anganwadi Worker in the Center in question. 5.3. It is however contended that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 01.10.2012 in Misc. Case No.12679 of 2012, Petitioner is continuing as the Anganwadi Worker in the Center in question till date. 5.4. It is contended that since Petitioner has no fault with regard to the advertisement issued by the CDPO on 07.01.2011, basing on which she got the benefit of engagement for such fault on the part of the CDPO if any, the selection and engagement of the Petitioner could not have been interfered with, with a direction to go for fresh selection vide the impugned order dtd.18.07.2012 under Annexure-4. 5.5. It is accordingly contended that since the ground on which Petitioner’s selection and engagement as A.W Worker of Mathalput, (Tota Sahi) Anganwadi Center has been interfered with is not legally sustainable, the same requires interference of this Court. 6. On the face of service of notice, no appearance has been made by Opposite Party No.6 / appellant in RMC (Appeal) Case No.11/2011. Not only that on the face of the issuance of the notice vide order dtd.01.10.2012 with passing of the interim order, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. 6.1. However, basing on the available materials, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contended that since the advertisement basing on which Petitioner got the benefit of engagement is a defective one and in the said advertisement service area of the Center was not reflected, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order dtd.18.07.2012. 6.2. However, it is fairly contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 01.10.2012, Petitioner is continuing as Anganwadi Worker in the Center in question. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opposite Party No.5 on 07.01.2011, inviting application for selection and engagement of Anganwadi Worker in different A.W Center coming under ICDS Project, Koraput, Petitioner made the application and got the benefit of engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Mathalput, (Tota Sahi) Anganwadi Center. Such selection and engagement of the Petitioner was assailed by Opposite Party No.6 by filing an appeal before Opposite Party No.4, in RMC (Appeal) Case No.11/2011. 7.1. This Court after going through the impugned order finds that Opposite Party No.4 only on the ground that the advertisement issued by Opposite Party No.5 on 07.01.2011 being a defective one, the service area being not indicated in respect of the Center, set aside the selection and engagement of the Petitioner. 7.2. It is the view of this Court that for the fault, if any, committed by the CDPO-Opposite Party No.5 in issuing the advertisement on 07.01.2011, Petitioner’s engagement having been made duly in accordance with the guideline governing the field, could not have been set aside. 7.3. It is also the view of this Court that since Petitioner w.e.f. the year 2011 is continuing as an Anganwadi Worker in the Center in question and no contrary material having been produced either by the State or by Opposite Party No.6, through her appearance, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dtd.18.07.2012 so passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-4. While quashing the said order, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat