The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24976 OF 2011 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. AFR Shantilata Sethi --------------- …. -versus- Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. P.K. Mohanty-2 & P.K. Pradhan, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate. Mr. J.K. Mishra(2), Adv. for O.P. No.4 __________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 23rd December, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 10.08.2011 issued by opposite party No.3 engaging her as Helper of Karanja-3 Anganwadi Center. Case of the petitioner Page 1 of 17 2. The petitioner’s case is that she belongs to village Karanja and is a graduate. She belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and hails from a poor and backward family. An advertisement was issued on 08.12.2010 by the CDPO, Baliapal for selection of Anganwadi Helpers of different Anganwadi Centers. As per the said advertisement, the Mahila Sabha for selection of the Anganwadi Helper in respect of Kangaja-3 Anganwadi Center was to be convened on 13.12.2010. The Mahila Sabha was convened on the aforementioned date in presence of the CDPO, the lady Supervisor, Panchayat Samiti Member and women of the concerned village. It is stated that the area consists of 468 persons, out of whom 343 belong to the Scheduled Caste and 125 belong to the general Caste. As per the guidelines dated 24.11.1997, the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community are to be given preference in selection. In the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010, about ninety Mahila members were present. The petitioner and opposite party No.4 were the final candidates for consideration of their selection for Helper. Out of the 90 Mahila members present, 34 cast Page 2 of 17 their votes in favor of opposite party No.4 and the remaining 56 members, who were supporters of the petitioner, when attempted to cast their votes in favor of the petitioner, the supporters of opposite party No.4 created disturbance by throwing chairs and other materials on the petitioner and her supporters and did not allow them to cast their votes. The CDPO also left the Mahila Sabha without making any attempt for smooth conduct of the Mahila Sabha. In view of such development, the petitioner remained under the bonafide impression that the Mahila Sabha would be reconvened but was shocked to know that proceeding showing convening of the Mahila Sabha on 13.12.2010 had been prepared by the CDPO at the behest of opposite party No.4 and her supporters, wherein she had been declared selected. According to the petitioner, the Mahila Sabha convened on 13.12.2010 had not reached its logical conclusion. The petitioner therefore, submitted a representation before the Sub-Collector, Balasore on 06.05.2011 making allegations against the CDPO and the opposite party No.4. The Sub -Collector directed the SSWO, Balasore to conduct enquiry and Page 3 of 17 submit his report. The inquiry was conducted on 19.05.2011 by the SSWO and he submitted his report to the Sub-Collector on 30.05.2011 indicating therein that he had visited the spot and met the lady Supervisor, the concerned Anganwadi Worker, Panchayat Samiti member etc. All of them stated that the Mahila Sabha was not conducted peacefully due to disturbances created by the supporters of opposite party No.4. The Mahila members present in the meeting also stated that the CDPO left the Mahila Sabha without taking votes of 56 Mahila members present in the meeting. Thus, the Inquiry Officer was of the view that most of the Mahila members of Karanja three Anganwadi Center had not participated in the Mahila Sabha. He therefore, suggested cancelation of the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010 and for reconvening of the same. The Sub-Collector, upon consideration of the report, in his letter dated 08.07.2011 directed the CDPO to convene a fresh Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper following the Government guidelines,. Accordingly, the CDPO, Baliapal issued a fresh advertisement on 15.07.2011 inviting applications from the eligible Page 4 of 17 candidates. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party No.4 filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) No.19983 of 2011 with prayer to quash the advertisement dated 15.07.2011 and to direct the CDPO to issue engagement order in her favor. The petitioner was not made a party to the said writ application. During pendency of the said writ application, the CDPO vide letter dated 10.08.2011 issued engagement order in favor of opposite party No.4 pursuant to the fabricated Mahila Sabha
Decision
proceeding dated 13.12.2010. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by opposite party No.4 was disposed of as withdrawn. According to the petitioner, the engagement of opposite party No.4 is illegal being contrary to the inquiry report submitted by the SSWO as also the directions of the Sub- Collector in his letter dated 08.07.2011. Basically on such facts, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application, seeking the following relief. “The petitioner therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the order of engagement of the Opp.Party No.4 as Helper in Karanja-III Anganwadi Centre under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed and Page 5 of 17 the Opp.Party No.2 and 3 shall not be directed to convene a fresh Mahila Sabha and ensure free and fair selection of Helper for Karanja-III Anganwadi Centre by following the guidelines for selection of Helper in Anganwadi Centre in its letter and spirit; If the Opp.Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute; any pass And/or other writ/writs, order/orders the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Stand of the State-opposite parties. 3. Stand of opposite parties as reflected in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 is that in the Mahila Sabha, 34 Mahila members out of 90 present in the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010 had given their support/consent through signatures/thumb impression in favor of the opposite party No.4. The remaining 56 Mahila Members present in the Mahila Sabha refrained themselves from the said process of supporting any contesting candidate. Further, no Mahila member had supported the petitioner for the post. The CDPO, Baliapal, who is the chairperson of the Selection Committee Page 6 of 17 conducted the Mahila Sabha smoothly, peacefully and wrote the proceedings by declaring the name of the opposite party No.4 as the selected candidate. All present had signed in the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner regarding disturbance in Mahila Sabha is entirely beyond facts, fabricated and concocted. It is also stated that in the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha along with the CDPO, being the chairperson of the Selection Committee, other members such as the concerned lady Supervisor, Health Worker Female and Anganwadi worker of Karanja-3 center had signed on the body of the proceedings as per Government guidelines. As such, the proceedings along with follow up action are legal and lawful. As regards the inquiry conducted by the SSWO, Balasore, it is stated that the same did not find favour of this Court in the earlier writ application filed by opposite party No.4 being W.P.(C) No. 16111 of 2011 and in W.P.(C) No.19983 of 2011. In fact the same was dealt with while passing interim order on 28.07.2011. Therefore, the inquiry report has no intrinsic value. That apart, the field inquiry report based on inquiry Page 7 of 17 conducted five months after convening of the Mahila Sabha would not reveal the truth. Since this Court in the earlier writ applications, accepted the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010, the selection and engagement of opposite party No.4 as Anganwadi Helper is valid and genuine. The petitioner did not receive the support of any Mahila member in the Mahila Sabha. The CDPO therefore, rightly issued engagement order in favor of opposite party No.4. Stand of the Opposite Party No.4. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.4, it is seen that according to her, the maximum Mahila members were interested for Anita Das, who was a general category candidate. The CDPO requested the members to vote in favor of the petitioner but nobody cast their vote in her favour. Thereafter, the CDPO requested the members to cast vote in favour of the opposite party No.4. As such, only 34 Mahila members cast their votes in her favour. The Mahila Sabha thereafter ended peacefully. The CDPO prepared the proceeding by declaring opposite Page 8 of 17 party No.4 as being selected for engagement. The remaining 56 Mahila members, who were supporters of Anita Das did not cast their vote nor supported the petitioner or the opposite party No.4. It is specifically denied that there was any disturbance in the Mahila Sabha rather the supporters of Anita Das demanded to appoint Anganwadi Worker from Scheduled Caste category by disengaging the general candidate. After completion of all formalities and declaration of result, the CDPO and other members left the place. As regards the allegation made by the petitioner, it is stated that the CDPO after selection sought for clarification from the Collector as to who would issue engagement order. Therefore, the opposite party No.4 filed writ petition before this Court being W.P(C) No. 16111 of 2011, which was disposed of by directing the CDPO to complete the entire exercise pursuant to the Mahila Sabha dated 13.12.2010 within a month. The Sub-Collector without issuing engagement order in favour of the opposite party No.4, in compliance of the direction of this Court, the CDPO issued another letter seeking clarification from the Sub-Collector. The Sub-Collector directed the CDPO to Page 9 of 17 complete the process as per guidelines with observations of Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010. The petitioner submitted complaint after six months, i.e. on 06.05 2011, basing on which the Sub-Collector directed the SSWO to conduct inquiry. The SSWO conducted inquiry without any notice to opposite party No.4 and the Mahila members of the village and prepared the report, which is entirely fabricated. It is also stated that the SSWO went to the village and prepared the report at the behest of political persons. The CDPO issued fresh advertisement illegally in defiance of the directions issued by this Court. After filing of W.P.(C) No.19983 of 2011 by the opposite party No.4 and upon receiving notice issued by this Court, the CDPO issued engagement order in favour of the opposite party No.4 5. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty-2, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Also heard Mr. J.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.4. Page 10 of 17 6. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the fact that the Mahila Sabha was not properly convened is well evident from the observations made by the Sub-Collector in his letter dated 15.07.2011 addressed to the CDPO. This clearly proves the case of the petitioner that the Mahila Sabha was not convened properly and that 56 Mahila members, who were supporters of the petitioner, could not cast their votes because of disturbance created by the supporters of the opposite party No. 4. Furthermore, when a fresh advertisement had been issued considering the report submitted by the SSWO, there was no occasion to issue an order of engagement in favour of opposite party No. 4. 7. Learned State Counsel would argue that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the proceedings had not been conducted peacefully. As regards the report of the SSWO, the State Counsel would submit that the same merely states that 34 Mahila members participated and cast their votes in favor of Minati Jena (opposite party No.4) and that 56 Mahila members remained silent in the meeting till the end of said Mahila Sabha. It is further Page 11 of 17 stated that most of the Mahila members had not participated during selection. On such basis, the SSWO recommended cancellation of the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010. 8. Mr. J.K Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.4 would argue that in the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010, no one came forward to support the petitioner. Most of the members were in favour of a general candidate, but the center being in a tribal area, as per Government guidelines, there being no ST candidate, only a Scheduled Caste person was to be appointed. Thus, 34 Mahila members present there cast their votes in favour of the opposite party No.4. The allegation that the supporters of opposite party No.4 threw chairs and created disturbance and the other members could not cast their votes is entirely without basis and not borne out from any record at all. Even though the CDPO had issued fresh advertisement, but the same was challenged by the opposite party No.4 before this Court. During pendency of the writ application, the CDPO having issued engagement Page 12 of 17 order in favour of the opposite party No.4, the writ petition was withdrawn. 9. The facts being as narrated hereinbefore, it would be proper to first examine the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is seen that initially there were six candidates including the petitioner and opposite party No.4, but the candidature of four persons was rejected and only the petitioner and opposite party No.4 remained in the fray. In the proceeding drawn up, the signatures of all 34 persons, who supported opposite party No.4, have been appended to the copy of the proceedings. The proceedings have been signed by the CDPO, the Health Worker Female, the Lady Supervisor and the Anganwadi Worker of Karanja-3 Anganwadi Center. There is not a whisper in the proceeding as regards any disturbance having been caused by the supporters of opposite party No.4. Firstly, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the proceeding prepared by a Government Officer. Since nothing has been demonstrated or placed before this Court to show that the same was either Page 13 of 17 fabricated or prepared erroneously or that the CDPO was actuated by malafides. Coming to the inquiry report of the SSWO, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it is seen that he visited the spot and conducted an inquiry during which he met the Lady Supervisor, the concerned Anganwadi worker, Panchayat Samiti Member and 56 Scheduled Caste women. Only the Panchayat Samiti member stated that the supporters of Smt. Jena (opposite party No.4) created disturbance when the supporters of Smt. Sethi were going to cast their votes. The Mahila members stated that the CDPO had left the Mahila Sabha without taking their votes on 13.12.2010. On such basis, the SSWO arrived at the conclusion that most of the Mahila members of Karanja-3 Anganwadi Center had not participated during selection in the Mahila Sabha held on 13.12.2010 and accordingly recommended that the same may be cancelled. Though it has been mentioned that according to the Panchayat Samiti Member, the supporters of the opposite party No.4 created disturbance but then there is no specific allegation whatsoever, rather it has been stated in too general terms for this Court to definitely Page 14 of 17 hold that some kind of disturbance was created by the supporters of opposite party No. 4. 10. Coming to the letter dated 15.07.2011, copy enclosed as Annexure-8 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the Sub-Collector has mentioned to have enquired into the allegation petition filed by some ladies of village-Karanja through his own agency and ascertained that the Mahila Sabha conducted by CDPO, Baliapal on 13.12.2010 was not properly done and the proceeding of the Mahila Sabha prepared by her is a fabricated one as no signature of Mahila members is found on the body of the proceeding. Further, the proceedings speaks that 34 Mahila members supported Smt. Minati Jena but the signature/ thumb impression of 34 ladies is reflected in a separate paper without the authentication of the CDPO, Baliapal which, according to him, is undoubtedly a manufactured one. That is why the Sub- Collector directed the CDPO to convene a fresh Mahila Sabha again. This Court finds that the observations of the Sub-Collector are also general in nature, inasmuch as what sort of enquiry did he conduct in the matter, whom did he Page 15 of 17 meet, whose statement did he record, what exactly were the disturbances, has not been stated., and who were the ladies, who submitted complaint is also not forthcoming. Further, merely because the page containing the signature/thumb impression of 34 members, who had cast their votes in favor of the opposite party No.4, is reflected in a separate paper without authentication of the CDPO does not ipso facto lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is a manufactured document. It is significant to note that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, she submitted her complaint almost five months after the convening of the Mahila Sabha. Thus, there is no material worth the name to even remotely hold that the Mahila Sabha convened on 13.12.2010 was not properly convened. Neither the enquiry report submitted by the SSWO nor the observations of the Sub-Collector in his letter as referred above can be treated as conclusive proof that the Mahila Sabha was not properly conducted. Even otherwise, the Sub-Collector does not whisper a word with regard to the allegation of throwing of chairs by the supporters of opposite party No. 4, as alleged by the petitioner. In fact, the SSWO also does not mention Page 16 of 17 such fact in his enquiry report. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no justified reason to treat the proceeding prepared by the CDPO as fabricated. 11. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts and discussion made hereinbefore, it is evident that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference with the impugned order of engagement issued in favor of the opposite party No.4. As has already been narrated, the allegations leveled by the petitioner to the effect that the Mahila Sabha was not properly convened because of disturbances created by the supporters of opposite party No.4 do not have any solid foundation. This Court therefore, finds no reason to interfere in the matter. 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition fails and is therefore, dismissed. ..……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 23rd December, 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: 23-Dec-2024 12:21:44 Page 17 of 17