The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 2503 of 2021 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Smitanjali Nayak ..… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Behera, Additional Government Advocate Mr. G. Satapathy, Advocate for (O.P. No.4) __________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25thApril, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Bhadrak on 18.11.2020 in AW Appeal No.2 of 2016 is impugned in the present writ application. Page 1 of 12 2. The facts of the case are that Kamaria Revenue Village is a part of Sindol Gram Panchayat comprising of Ward Nos.6, 7 & 8 and an Anganwadi Center used to function in the said village wherein one Sarojini Pani was engaged. On account of increase of population, it was decided to have another Anganwadi Center in the village in the year 2010. As such, the existing center was bifurcated into two centers, with the existing center being renamed, Kamaria-1 and the new center, as Kamaria-2 Anganwadi Center. The area of operation of the newly created Kamaria-2 Anganwadi Center included Ward No.7 and part of Ward No.6 i.e., from House Nos.52 to 70 and 116 and 128. The said center also covered two localities namely, Dhoba Sahi and Kandi Sahi. Notification for the engagement of Anganwadi Worker of the new center being issued followed by the selection, one Aradhana Nayak was appointed as Anganwadi Worker, as per selection committee’s decision taken on 05.10.2010. As such, the area not included within Kamaria-2 Center constituted the area of Kamaria-1 Center. The Anganwadi Worker of Page 2 of 12 Kamaria-1 Center, Sarojini Pani having relinquished her post, the same fell vacant. The CDPO, Tihidi issued an advertisement on 27.07.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the post. The advertisement mentioned the area as part of Ward No.6, containing House Nos.1 to 88 and Ward No.8, in full. According to the petitioner, the incorporation of House Nos. 1 to 88 within the area of Kamaria-1 was fundamentally wrong since House Nos.52 to 70 were already included within Kamria- 2 center. The petitioner and some others, including the private Opposite Party No.4, submitted applications pursuant to the advertisement. According to the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4, being a resident of House No.61 under Ward No.6, could not have submitted the application as she is a resident of the area under Kamaria-2 center. However, the authorities selected her and issued order of engagement in her favour on 14.09.2015. 3. The petitioner submitted objection against such selection before the CDPO, but the same was not Page 3 of 12 entertained. She therefore, filed an appeal before the ADM, Bhadrak, being AW Appeal No.2 of 2016. The main claim of the petitioner in the appeal related to inclusion of House Nos.52 to 70 of Ward No.6 which was already included in Kamaria-2 center. The voter list of 2015 showed that the Opposite Party No.4 was a resident of House No.61, which was reiterated in the voter list of the year 2016. The ADM, by order dated 10.11.2016, observed that in the inquiry conducted by the B.S.S.O., Tihidi, it was found that a small cottage is standing over the ancestral plot of Amarnath Sethy, father of private Opposite Party No.4 under Ward No.6, which was then within Kamaria-1 center area. As such, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.22377 of 2016 challenging the order passed in the appeal. It was contended before this Court that once Kamaria-1 and Kamaria-2 centers were demarcated and the petitioner being a resident of House No.42 while Opposite Party No.4 being resident of House No.61, the candidature of the latter could not have been considered and in any case, the Page 4 of 12 advertisement was non-est in the eye of law. This Court by order dated 28.02.2020, observed that a specific plea was raised by the appellant-petitioner but the ADM only stated that all persons belonged to the Anganwadi Center area and because Opposite Party No.4 secured higher percentage of marks, she was selected and given engagement. The ADM had not discussed the contention raised by the petitioner and passed the impugned order without assigning any reason. As such, the matter was remanded to the ADM to reconsider the same. Pursuant to such order, the ADM heard the appeal afresh and by the order impugned, rejected the same on the finding that as per the notification dated 27.07.2015, House Nos.1 to 88 come within the center area. Both the petitioners as well as the Opposite Party No.4 are residents of the said area.
Legal Reasoning
The notification as such, had neither been challenged by the petitioner nor declared wrong by this Court. The candidature of the private Opposite Party cannot therefore, be ignored. The petitioner has therefore, filed Page 5 of 12 this writ application seeking quashment of the order of the ADM. 4. The stand of the State authorities, as per the counter affidavit filed by the CDPO, is that the advertisement dated 27.07.2015 clearly mentioned that Kamaria-1 Anganwadi Center consists of house Nos.1 to 88 under Ward No.8 and Ward No.6 in part. The Opposite Party No.4 belongs to Kamaria Village and her household number is 88 as per the family survey report duly signed by the Lady Supervisor. Both House Nos. 61 and 88 come within the service area Kamaria-1. The claim of the petitioner is therefore, devoid of merit. 5. The stand of the private Opposite Party No.4 is that the petitioner having participated in the selection process but becoming unsuccessful therein, cannot be allowed to question her non-selection subsequently. The advertisement was published on 27.07.2015, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted her application without any protest. Even otherwise, the house of the Opposite Party No.4 is 61, which is included within the service area. Page 6 of 12 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned senior counsel along with Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. G. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4. 7. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel would argue that once Kamaria-2 Anganwadi Center was established with its area of operation duly specified, the authorities could not have included a portion of the said area within the area of Kamaria-1 Anganwadi Center, as per the advertisement dated 27.07.2015. Admittedly, the Opposite Party No.4 is a resident of Household No.61 under Ward No.6, which comes under Kamaria-2 Anganwadi Center. Therefore, she could not have been permitted to apply for Kamaria-1 center. On the contrary, the petitioner’s Household number is 42 which come under Kamaria-1 Anganwadi center. These facts are clearly proved from the voter list produced by the petitioner before the ADM. The ADM, however, did not Page 7 of 12 consider the materials on record and wrongly held the Opposite Party No.4 to be a resident of Kamaria -1 Center. 8. Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit that as per notification dated 27.07.2015 advertisement was issued for selection of Anganwadi Workers for eleven centers including Kamaria- 1 Center. As per the notification Kamaria-1 Center consisted of the area covering House Nos. 1 to 88 under Ward No.8 and Ward No.6 in part. The petitioner’s household number is 42, but that of the Opposite Party No.4 is 61. As such, both were eligible to apply for Kamaria-1 Center. Since Opposite Party No.4 was found to have secured more marks, she was selected. The appeal was therefore, rightly rejected by the ADM. 9. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the private Opposite Party would submit that the petitioner had never challenged the notification dated 27.07.2015 but willfully submitted her application and participated in the selection process. Having become unsuccessful in the selection process, she cannot be allowed to challenge the Page 8 of 12 notification or the selection process subsequently. Even otherwise, as per the materials on record, both the petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.4 belong to Kamaria-1 center. 10. The notification dated 27.07.2015, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-2, reveals that in respect of Kamaria-1 center the name of the locality is mentioned as Kamaria-1, House Nos.1 to 88. The ward number is mentioned as 6 (part) and 8. Undisputedly, the above notification was never challenged by the petitioner, rather she submitted her application and willfully participated in the selection process. After having become unsuccessful, she raised her grievance against the selection of Opposite Party No.4. Her specific plea, as revealed from a copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by her before the ADM, is that the private Opposite Party is not an inhabitant of Kamaria-1 Center because, as per the final voter list of 2015, her house number is 61 under Ward No.6, which comes under Kamaria-2 center. So, essentially the petitioner sought to challenge the notification dated Page 9 of 12 27.07.2015 including House No.61 within the area of Kamaria-1. 11. It is trite law that unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging the selection criteria. Further, the principle of estoppel has also been applied to persons, who, being fully aware of the procedure for selection willfully went through the process of selection, but, being unsuccessful sought to challenge the same. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dhananjaya Malik & Ors v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors 2008 (4)SCC 171 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surendar Singh 2019 (8) SCC 67. It has already been stated that the petitioner, if aggrieved, ought to have challenged the notification dated 27.07.2015 promptly. Instead, she chose to apply knowing fully well the area of operation of the Anganwadi Center, as mentioned in the advertisement. She participated in the selection process and having become unsuccessful she raised her grievance, which, as per the settled position of law referred above, is not worthy of consideration. Reading Page 10 of 12 of the impugned order shows that the ADM, being alive to the above position of law, has observed that the notification dated 27.07.2015 had not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. The writ application is therefore, held to be not maintainable on such score alone. 12. Even on merits, this Court finds that the area of operation of Kamaria-1 is stated as House Nos.1 to 88. Admittedly, the household number of the petitioner is 42 and that of Opposite Party No.4 is 61. The above is evident from the voter lists placed on record before the ADM as well as this Court. It is needless to mention that both come within the specified households, namely, 1 to 88 and therefore, both were eligible to apply. Such being the fact, the Opposite Party No.4, having secured more marks than the petitioner, was rightly selected. 13. Thus, from the conspectus of analysis of facts and law, as noted above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the writ Page 11 of 12 application is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th April, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:06:18 Page 12 of 12