Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sanjita Khura … v. The Collector -cum- Chairman and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11446 of 2013 Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sanjita Khura …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - The Collector -cum- Chairman and others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case through virtual mode:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Purohit, P.K. Swain, A.K. Das & R.C. Pattnaik, Advocates.
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.R. Dash, Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 13th September, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this case, issue notice on the O.P.s asking them to show impugned letter dated cause as to why the 16.02.2013 of the O.P. no.3 shall not be quashed Page 1 of 7 as illegal and if the opp. parties show insufficient or no reason, then issue a writ of appropriate nature directing the Opposite Parties to publish the selection list in respect of the Anganwadi Worker for Gindilmal Sub-Anganwadi Centre by quashing the impugned letter dt. 16.02.2013 (Annexure-5) And/or pass any or such other/further order(s)/directions as deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid circumstances of the case; And allow this writ petition; 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Gindilamal Sub- Anganwadi Centre in the district of Sonepur pursuant to advertisement dated 19.11.2012. The selection committee found the petitioner eligible for the post but certain doubts being raised with regard to her residential status, the Tahasildar, Ullunda was directed to conduct an enquiry. After enquiry, the Tahasildar found the residential certificate of the petitioner to be genuine and accordingly submitted his report to the CDPO on 04.02.2013. While the petitioner was awaiting receipt of the appointment letter, she was surprised to know that by a notification issued on 16.02.2013, the earlier advertisement had been cancelled apparently for unavoidable reasons. Page 2 of 7 2. Counter affidavit has been filed justifying the cancellation of the advertisement on the ground that the villagers of Gindilamal filed an objection on 10.12.2012 objecting that the petitioner is not a resident of said village and that she is a resident of Mundomahul. It is however, admitted in the counter that as per enquiry conducted by Tahasildar, Ullunda it was found that the residence certificate issued in favour of the petitioner vide Misc. Case No.4574 of 2012 is genuine and valid. Further, the selection committee has not selected anyone else as Anganwadi Worker of the Centre. 3. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder enclosing the voter list of Gindilamal wherein she is mentioned as a voter. It is further stated that the survey list prepared by the lady supervisor cannot override the residential certificate issued by the statutory authority as also the voter list showing the petitioner to be a resident of the village in question. Page 3 of 7 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 5. Assailing the impugned notification cancelling the advertisement dated 19.11.2012, Mr. Purohit would argue that the same does not mention any reason whatsoever to justify cancellation of the entire selection process. In any event, the question of residential status of the petitioner no longer being in dispute in view of the report of the Tahasildar, Ullunda that the residential certificate issued in her favour is genuine and valid, the cancelation of the selection process cannot be justified by any means. 6. Mr. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that because of complaint submitted by the villagers of Gindilamal, the selection process could not be taken to its logical conclusion and there was no other option for the authorities than to cancel the selection process. Page 4 of 7 7. Without entering into the factual controversy as regards the so called complaint said to have been submitted by the villagers relating to the residential status of the petitioner, this Court firstly finds that no specific reason has been cited in the impugned notification for cancellation of the advertisement. It is only mentioned that the cancellation was effected because of “unavoidable reasons”, which can hardly be treated as a valid reason. It is the settled position of law that the authorities have the right to cancel a selection process at any stage but then it is equally well settled that the action of the authorities cannot be arbitrary but it has to pass the test of reasonableness. Reference in this regard may be had to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Das v. Union of India1. 8. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, it is more than evident that the reason cited in the impugned notice cannot be treated as valid to justify cancellation of the advertisement. As regards the stand taken in the 1 AIR 1991 SC 1612 Page 5 of 7 counter regarding the so called complaint submitted by some villagers against the petitioner and her residential status, this Court can do no more than to refer to the settled position of law that the authorities cannot be permitted to improve upon their case by stating something in the counter which they have not stated in the original notification. 9. As has already been discussed hereinbefore, the impugned notice does not whisper a word as regards the reason cited in the counter for cancelling the advertisement. Reference in this regard may be had in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi2. 10. From the foregoing narration of facts and law, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Be it noted that the operation of the impugned notice has been stayed as per order dated 15.05.2013 passed by this Court. 2 AIR 1978 SC 851 Page 6 of 7 11. Resultantly the writ application is allowed. The impugned notice dated 16.02.2013 is hereby quashed. The Collector, Sonepur is directed to conclude the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.11.2012 by taking it to its logical conclusion as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 13th September, 2024/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 17-Sep-2024 19:26:03 Page 7 of 7