The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5277 of 2025 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Nirupama Pani … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Soubhagya Ku. Dash, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 15.4.2025. JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer; W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 to parties “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the the consider opposite petitioner’s candidature for the post of Anganwadi Helper at Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi Center in compliance with the directions of this Hon’ble Court and quash Fresh dated No. Advertisement 143 06.02.2025 so far Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi center is concerned as being arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; And Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Facts
2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Rayagada (Opp. Party No.4) in the district of Gajapati on 8.9.2024 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection and engagement as Anganwadi Helper of different Anganwadi Centres. The Petitioner submitted application for Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi Centre. She was the only candidate for the said Centre. The result of selection for the other Anganwadi Centres was issued on 24.10.2024, but in W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 so far as the Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi Centre is concerned, no such notification was issued. The Petitioner submitted representation to the Sub- Collector, Parlakhemundi, Gajapati (Opp. Party No.3) in this regard. Since no action was taken, she
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.31440/2024. By
Decision
order dated 02.1.2025, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition granting liberty to the Petitioner to submit another representation addressed to the Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi, which was directed to be disposed of by passing a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. Subsequently, another advertisement was issued on 6.2.2025 for different Anganwadi Centres including Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner therefore, filed the present Writ Petition with the prayer as quoted hereinbefore. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted an application enclosing therewith copy of the letter dtd.28.2.2025 of the C.D.P.O. informing that the advertisement for Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi Centre has been cancelled. W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is, inter alia, stated that the Petitioner was the single candidate for Jeerango Christian Sahi Anganwadi Centre, but she does not belong to the operational area of the said Centre. From the inquiry conducted by the Lady Supervisor of Jeerango and Marlaba Sectors on 6.11.2024 on the complaint of villagers, who had objected to the candidature of the Petitioner, it was found that the Petitioner was not resident of the service area. Further, the villagers vehemently objected to her candidature and other villagers had signed on the inquiry report. Copy of letter dtd.28.2.2025 issued by the Sub-Collector, Parlakhemundi addressed to the CDPO is also enclosed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-E/4, wherein the reason for not accepting the candidature of the Petitioner has been mentioned. 4. Heard Mr. S.K.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 5. Mr. Dash would argue that as per the guidelines, the Petitioner is eligible for being considered for engagement as Anganwadi Helper of the area even if she is not a resident of the Centre area. There is no dispute that the Petitioner is a resident of the said village and therefore, she is entitled to be considered as per the guidelines. 6. Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate, would argue that even if the candidature of the Petitioner is concerned, the resident certificate produced by her is 12 years old, which is contrary to the terms of the advertisement. 7. Perusal of the guidelines issued on 15.3.2023 of the Government relating to selection of Anganwadi Helpers reveals that as per Clause-1(i), she must be a lady of the locality and acceptable to be the Anganwadi Worker. Thus, the place of residence has been broadly indicated as ‘locality’. Ordinarily, under the scheme of things, it would refer to the operational area of the Anganwadi Centre. The word ‘locality’ has not been otherwise defined in the guidelines. Locality means (i) a W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 District or neighbourhood, (ii) the scene of an event and (iii) the position of a thing. The word locally means within or in terms of a particular area or the people living in it. Understood thus, the term ‘locality’, in the context of the guidelines, would obviously refer to the area over which the Anganwadi Centre has jurisdiction. 8. However, this is a case where admittedly there was no candidate from the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner admittedly is a resident of the same village though not a resident of the service area of the centre. The question is, can she be treated as an eligible candidate? Had there been any other candidate who is a resident of the service area, obviously, the Petitioner could not have been held to be eligible, but in the absence of any other candidate the word ‘locality’ as used in the guidelines, in the considered view of this Court, would receive an expanded meaning in order to give effect to the object of the guidelines. This interpretation would be in line and having a reasonable nexus with the object sought W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 to be achieved by the guidelines, which is selecting a person as Anganwadi Helper. If on the other hand, a restrictive meaning is given to the word ‘locality’, it would in the instant case, result in the post remaining vacant for want of an eligible candidate. This would obviously be contrary to the object of the guidelines itself. In the letter dated 28.2.2025(Annexure-E/4), the Sub-Collector has himself noted the fact the Petitioner being a resident of the same village though not resident of the service area, her candidature can be considered. Her candidature was rejected not on the above ground, but on the ground of producing a resident certificate, which was 12 years old. Reference to the resolution of the selection committee reveals that the said ground was never cited for rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner rather, it was held that she was not a resident of the service area. Moreover, it is evident from the materials placed on record that some villagers had submitted objections to the candidature of the Petitioner. It is needless to mention that the selection is to be made strictly on the basis of W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 the guidelines for which, the objections, if any, submitted by the villagers can have no relevance. 9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the view that rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature on the ground that she does not specifically belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The proceeding of the selection committee as well as the decision of the Sub-Collector as reflected in the letter dtd.28.2.2025 is therefore set aside. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Selection Committee is directed to consider the candidature of the Petitioner and if found suitable, issue necessary orders of engagement in her favour without any further delay. Consequently, the fresh advertisement issued on 06.2.2025 is hereby quashed. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Apr-2025 10:49:27 Ashok Kumar Behera W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025 Page 8 of 8