The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 21343 of 2019 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------- Sandhyarani Panda ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. S. Jena, M.K. Dash & S.K. Rath, P.K. Nanda, A.S. Paul & D.Sahoo, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patanaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 17.01.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. A notification was issued on 19.08.2009 by the CDPO, Jagannath Prasad inviting applications from intending candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of various centers including Bhusandapala-B Center. The petitioner submitted her candidature along Page 1 of 13 with others. The service area of the center was fixed as (i) “Badasahi from the house of Jaya Nayak to Gobinda Sethi’s house” and (ii)Bhimasahi “Brundaban Gouda’s house to Natabara Sethi’s house”. The petitioner claims to be a resident of the said service area. In the selection process, one Annapurna Nayak secured highest marks being 59.6%, but did not appear for document verification and was underaged for which she was eliminated. The petitioner had secured the second highest marks being 57.8% and as such she was selected for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. However, the authorities did not issue engagement order and kept the matter pending without any reason. 2. The petitioner approached the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar and CDPO, Jagannath Prasad several times, but to no avail. As such, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.14507 of 2011 with prayer for direction to the authorities to issue engagement order in her favour. By order dated 19.05.2011, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the CDPO, Jagannath Prasad to Page 2 of 13 consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within three months. In spite of such order, no action was taken for which the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2136 of 2015. By order dated 21.07.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order: “Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the opposite list and parties for publication of merit issuance of engagement order in her favour for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Bhusandhapala-B Anganwadi Center under Jagannath Prasad Block. The case of the petitioner is that notice for was published engagement of Anganwadi but even after lapse of more than more years, authorities have not concluded selection process. the year 2011 in Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties wherein so may ground of delay in conclusion of selection process have been taken like preparation of merit fist and reconstruction of area of Anganwadi Center etc. Be that as it may, when notice for engagement of Anganwadi Worker has been issued which means but there is requirement of Anganwadi Worker for the said centres. The authority cannot linger the selection process for indefinite period. Page 3 of 13 In view thereof, the Collector, Ganjam is directed to look into the matter so that the entire exercise must be completed within four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, however, the authority will proceed and select the candidate in accordance with the guideline in operation.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.” 3. One Nirmala Dalai filed a petition before the Collector, Ganjam challenging the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of the center in question. The DSWO, Ganjam by letter dated 12.08.2015, intimated to the CDPO that as desired by the Collector, the selection of Anganwadi Worker for Bhusandhapala-B Center could not be proceeded with. The petitioner approached the Collector pursuant to direction of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition and after hearing her, the Collector passed the impugned order on 27.09.2015 declaring the applications received during 2009 as null and void and by directing the CDPO to re-survey the area of operation and to issue fresh advertisement thereafter. It Page 4 of 13 is stated that the Collector has no authority or competence to pass order for reconstitution of service area, the selection process having already been completed. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’be Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule “NISI” calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dtd.19.07.2015 under Annexure-4 passed by the Collector, Ganjam shall not be quashed and as to why a direction shall not be issued to engage the Petitioner as the Anganwadi Worker in respect of Bhusandhapala-B Center and if the Opp. Party fail to show cause and/or shown insufficient and/or false cause make the said rule absolute and further be pleased to direct the Opposite parties to engage the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Bhusandhapala-B center; And further be pleased to pass any other this order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray;” 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State– opposite party (O.P Nos. 2 to 5) justifying the order passed by the Collector. It is stated that eight candidates had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 19.08.2009. Objections were invited. Five objections were received including objection with regard to validity of the service Page 5 of 13 area on the ground that the same was defective as it did not conform to the requirements of the guidelines/circular issued by the Women & Child Development Department, Government of Odisha. The objections were considered and after verifying the records, the BLCC, being the competent committee issued direction to the CDPO to resurvey the area and submit report. The matter was discussed in the Selection Committee meeting held on 14.02.2011, 17.10.2012 and 31.10.2012 and it was decided to divide the area properly. After approval in BLCC meeting, a fresh advertisement was to be published for Bhusandapala-B Anganwadi Center. The decision of the BLCC is based on correct reading of the circular dated 01.05.2007, wherein it is specified that each center shall have a specific number of people. The advertisement issued on 16.08.2009 did not conform to the said circular and the population was less than 400 being 364. As such, the BLCC rightly took the decision for resurvey. Page 6 of 13 5. Heard Ms. S. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Ms. Jena would argue that once a selection process is initiated, it is not open to the authorities to change the service area as it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has started. Moreover, the service area having been defined by the Government, the Collector has no authority to change the same. Ms. Jena further submits that the decision to reconstitute the service area is actuated by malafides as it is intended to engage a candidate of the choice of the authorities. 7. Mr. Patnaik, on the other hand, would argue that as per the norms fixed by the Government an Anganwadi Center is to cater to a population of 400. The advertisement in question prescribed a service area which did not conform to the above requirement inasmuch as the population was less than 400. Objection being thus Page 7 of 13 raised, the Collector very rightly directed for resurvey of the area and for cancellation of the advertisement. 8. From the facts narrated above, it is seen that pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.08.2009, eight candidates had applied including the petitioner. Of them, one Annapurna Nayak had secured 59.6% marks in HSC examination, but she was absent on the day of document verification. Two other candidates, namely, Sukana Devi and Minati Guru were also absent on the day of documents verification. Thus, five candidates including the petitioner remained in the fray. Of them, the petitioner secured the highest mark being 57.8%. It is true that no order of engagement was issued in favour of the petitioner as the matter was stalled at this stage. No office order or direction was issued for stalling the selection process, save and except the letter dated 12.08.2015 of the DSWO, Ganjam addressed to the CDPO. In the earlier writ petition, this Court took note of the fact that despite lapse of a long time, the authorities have not concluded the selection process and thus held that the authorities Page 8 of 13 cannot linger the selection process for indefinite period. Of course, the Court did not enter into the merits of the case of the petitioner and left it open to the authority to select the candidate in accordance with the guidelines in operation. 9. Reading of the impugned order suggests that one Nirmala Dalai had applied pursuant to the advertisement and also submitted objection. Said Nirmala Dalai had secured 42% marks. It is stated that she had submitted an objection with regard to the service area. Obviously, the Collector had not considered the locus standi of said Nirmala Dalai to object to the service area. Firstly, it is trite law that a person having participated in the selection process, without questioning the correctness of the advertisement, has no locus standi to do so after initiation of the selection process or raise such question subsequently. Secondly, as per the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the Government in W & CD Department (which were in vogue at the relevant time), the procedure laid down in case of selection of Anganwadi Page 9 of 13 Workers provides for grant of seven days’ time for filing of objection by the community but only on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate. But here is a case where the authorities have entertained a so called objection submitted by a candidate who participated in the selection process without any protest at the outset and that too on a ground not contemplated in the guidelines at all. This is a vital aspect of the matter which the Collector has lost sight of completely. 10. Even otherwise, as per the counter filed by the State, five objections were received but the details thereof have not been given out in the least. It goes without saying that once a service area has been defined and acted upon, the authorities cannot simply turn around and say that the same was wrong subsequently. If the population of the service area was actually less than 400 at the relevant time how could it be defined as a service area for a separate Anganwadi Center in the first place. The State has not produced cogent proof to show as to what exactly was the population at the relevant time. If Page 10 of 13 such was the case, in all fairness, the matter should have been referred to the Government seeking necessary approval. The same not having being done, this Court is of the view that the guidelines dated 02.05.2007 do not confer any such power on the Collector to unilaterally cancel the advertisement and decide to initiate fresh advertisement. 11. It has been argued that the petitioner has not acquired any vested right for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker as mere inclusion in the select list is of no consequence. This Court takes note of the settled positon of law in this regard as reflected in the following observation of the Supreme Court in the case of East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others1 held as follows:- “While no candidate acquires as indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list 1 (2010) 7 SCC 678 Page 11 of 13 prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State’s decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. The least which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step-in-aid of a possible appointment in their favour, were entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner.” 12. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, this Court is left with no doubt that the action of the authorities in the present case is far from reasonable, rather same can be treated as arbitrary and therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law. 13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The opposite parties authorities are directed to take necessary steps to conclude the selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 19.08.2009 at the earliest and in any case, not later than two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the Page 12 of 13 petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the candidates in the selection process. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 17th January , 2025/ B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Jan-2025 12:41:28 Page 13 of 13