8. The next question arises as to whether the opposite party no.4 can be engaged in the post of Anganwadi Helper. Mahila Sabha has not recommended the name of the petitioner. Thus the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no.2, is not justified in directing the C.D.P.O., Bonth, opposite party no.3, to engage the opposite party no.4. The proceeding of the Mahila Sabha reveals that apart from opposite party no.4, there is another widow, namely, Basanti Jena who belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thus it will not be proper to direct engagement of the opposite party no.4 in the post without recommendation of the Mahila Sabha in respect of other candidates. In view of the same, this Court directs the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no.2, to hold Mahila Sabha by any other officer than the C.D.P.O., Bonth, opposite party no.3, on a particular date and consider the names of other candidates barring the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Helper. The aforesaid order has been passed keeping in view the fact that the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no.2 directed the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak to draw departmental proceeding against the erring officials involved in the manipulation of the record relating to selection/engagement of Anganwadi Helper.
