The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 21834 OF 2017 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. AFR Puspalata Nayak @ Biswal …. Petitioner --------------- -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. Ajaya Kumar Nayak P.K. Hazary & S. Sahoo, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate. M/s.Niranjan Singh, S.K. Giri & Y.N. Pathy, Advocates [For O.P. No.5] __________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 13th September, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner, in the present writ application seeks to challenge the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balaosre whereby the appeal preferred by her being SSW Appeal Case No. 04 of 2017 was rejected. Page 1 of 9 2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.08.2016 by the CDPO, Soro inviting applications from the intending candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of 16 Anganwadi Centers and one Mini Anganwadi Center, the petitioner and opposite party No.5 submitted their applications along with others for Gud Malisahi Anganwadi Center. In course of selection, the opposite party No.5 was found suitable and was therefore, selected. She was thereafter engaged as Anganwadi Worker. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No.5 not being a resident of Gud Malisahi was not eligible for selection. Further, the petitioner had secured more marks than the opposite party No.5. The
Legal Reasoning
petitioner challenged the appointment of opposite party No.5 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 832 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2017 directing the Sub-Collector to dispose of her representation/appeal. Pursuant to such order, the Sub-Collector rejected the appeal by holding that the opposite party No.5 having worked as Anganwadi Helper of another Anganwadi Center in the same village, is eligible to be selected. This, Page 2 of 9 according to the petitioner is contrary to the Government Guidelines that the Anganwadi Worker must be a resident of the service area of the said Anganwadi Center. As such, according to the petitioner, the impugned order is bad in law. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 inter alia, on the ground that as per the Government guidelines, every Anganwadi Center has its own service area and therefore, fresh candidates applying for engagement as Anganwadi Worker must belong to the said service area but in case of Anganwadi Helper residing within the revenue village, she can apply in any of the Anganwadi Centers of the village, if she fulfills the other criteria. In the instant case, the opposite party No.5 was working as Anganwadi Helper of Gud-IV Anganwadi Center within the same revenue village with HSC qualification and having more than five years’ experience. She was therefore, rightly selected. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder refuting the stand taken in the counter affidavit by stating that Anganwadi Helper having requisite qualification and found Page 3 of 9 to be suitable can be selected as Anganwadi Worker provided she has worked for more than five years but it is not specifically stated in the guidelines whether she would be eligible to apply for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of all Anganwadi Centers of the village or the particular Anganwadi Center. 5. Private opposite party No.5, though appeared through counsel has not filed any counter affidavit. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr.A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.5. 7. Referring to the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 issued by the Government in Women and Child Development Department, Mr. Nayak would argue that Clause-1 clearly provides that a person, in order to be eligible to apply for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of a particular Center has to be a resident within the service area of the said Center. Clause-4 provides that an Anganwadi Helper can also apply for being engaged as Page 4 of 9 Anganwadi Worker provided she has the requisite qualification. According to Mr. Nayak, a harmonious reading of both the clauses would make it clear that an Anganwadi Helper in order to be eligible to apply must be a resident of the service area of the particular Anganwadi Center. In the instant case, the Sub-Collector has misread the Government guidelines to hold otherwise. 8. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned AGA would submit that as per Clause-1, the residential requirement is alternative inasmuch as it is open to persons belonging to the same village or of the same service area to apply. However, this is for general candidates. In so far as a person already engaged as Anganwadi Helper it would imply, she would be eligible if she is found to be working as such in any Anganwadi Center of the same revenue village. In the instant case there is no dispute that the opposite party No.5 was working as Helper in Gud Malisahi Anganwadi Center, which is within the same revenue village, Gud and therefore, she being eligible to apply, was rightly selected. Page 5 of 9 9. Mr. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.5 submits that there is no bar for an Anganwadi Helper of the same revenue village to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker in any Anganwadi Center of the same village. According to Mr. Singh, the contention of the petitioner would be valid only if the Anganwadi Helper is of an Anganwadi Center situate in a different village. In the instant case, the opposite party No.5 was working as Helper in a center situate in the same village and therefore, was rightly selected. 10. Having regard to the nature of the dispute it would be apt to first refer to the relevant clauses of the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007, which are quoted hereunder: “Clause-1 - Applications for selection of Volunteers to work as Anganwadi Workers will be invited for each village/Anganwadi Center area from women residing in the said village/Anganwadi Center area. Clause-4 – Anganwadi Helper and Organiser if having the requisite qualification and are found to be suitable shall be selected as Anganwadi Worker provided they have worked for more than five years.” 11. A plain reading of clause-1 would show that a person resident within the same village or belonging to the Page 6 of 9 same Anganwadi Center area would be eligible to apply. The use of slash(/) in between the words ‘village’ and ‘Anganwadi Center area’ obviously implies that said requirement is alternative. In other words, a person would be eligible if she is a resident of the same village or within the Anganwadi Center Area. The alternative has been provided to meet the contingency arising when persons of the same village are applicants. So as between persons from the same village, those belonging to the Anganwadi Center area would be preferred. Clause-4 does not mention anything as regards the residence. Therefore, Clause-1 would be generally applicable. If such be the interpretation then as between persons working as helpers in different Anganwadi Centers of the same revenue village, persons working in the center of which advertisement has been issued would be preferred but then, this Court finds that by a subsequent clarification issued by the Government on 25.06.2010, the requirement of residence was relaxed in case of Anganwadi Helpers for selection of Anganwadi Worker. The letter issued in clarification on 25.06.2010 is extracted hereinbelow: Page 7 of 9 “GOVERNMENT OF ODISHAWOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT No. IV-ICDS-132/09/11267/ WCD, Dated 25.06.2010 From To Smt. D.N. Sahoo, O.A.S. Under Secretary to Govt. The DSWO, Balasore Sub. Clarification for engagement of AWH as AWW. Sir/Madam, I am directed to invite reference to the subject noted above and to clarify that government has agreed for relaxation of residence in case of Organizer/Helper for selection of AWW over and above the provisions made for them in Para-4 of the Revised Guidelines dated 02.05.2007 Sd/- Under Secretary to Govt.” 12. From a bare reading of the above clarification it is clear that the requirement of residence as provided under Clause-1 of the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 has been relaxed only in case of Anganwadi Helpers applying for engagement as Anganwadi Workers. 13. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the Sub-Collector without specifically referring to the above clarification has taken such a view. There is no dispute that both the petitioner and opposite party No.5 belong to the same revenue village, that is, Gud. Further, the opposite party No.5 was working as Helper in Gud Malisahi Anganwadi Center within the same village. Therefore, as between the petitioner and opposite party No.5, the latter is Page 8 of 9 entitled to be preferred for engagement notwithstanding the fact that she is not a resident of service area of Gud Malisahi Anganwadi Center. This Court therefore, finds nothing wrong in her selection as such. Consequently, the impugned order is found to be without any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court. 14. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ application, which is therefore, dismissed. ..……..………………….. 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: 13-Sep-2024 18:47:33 Page 9 of 9