The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5037 of 2018 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Bari Murmu @ Soren … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.P.C.Mishra, Sr.Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A For Opp.Party No.5 : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Sr. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 23.12.2024. JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the order dated 06.2.2018 passed W.P.(C) No.5037 of 2018 Page 1 of 12 by the Addl. District Magistrate Balasore, in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.8/2017 whereby, the said appeal filed by her was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the C.D.P.O., Balasore, issued an advertisement on 21.9.2016 to fill
Legal Reasoning
up the post of Anganwadi Worker for Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre. Pursuant to such advertisement, the Petitioner was one of the applicants. In the selection process the private Opposite Party No.5 was selected. By order dated 19.10.2016, the C.D.P.O. invited objections from all concerned against such selection. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her objection on 25.10.2016 objecting to the selection of Opp.Party No.5 on the ground that she does not belong to the Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre and that she is resident of the service area of Srikona-3 Anganwadi Centre. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ application being
Decision
W.P.(C) No.487/2017, which was disposed of by order 16.1.2017 granting liberty to her to file appeal before W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 2 of 12 the appellate authority. While the matter stood thus and the petitioner had preferred appeal, the C.D.P.O. issued engagement order in favour of Opp. Party No.5 on 10.5.2017. At the time of inviting objections on 19.10.2016, the C.D.P.O. mentioned the name of the Opp. Party No.5 at Sl. No.3, but the name of her husband Alok Maity was not mentioned. The villagers of Srikona-5 also submitted an objection to the Sub- Collector highlighting the illegalities committed by the C.D.P.O. and prayed for early appointment of the Anganwadi Worker. The Sub-Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Social Security Officer, Balasore to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, the Social Security Officer conducted the enquiry and after examining the materials on record, opined that as per the application form submitted by the Opp.Party No.5 she is coming under the service area of Srikona-3 Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner therefore, filed Anganwadi Appeal Case No.8/2017 before the A.D.M. By order dated 06.2.2018, which is impugned in the W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 3 of 12 present application, the A.D.M. upheld the order of appointment and dismissed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief; “It is therefore prayed that for the interest of justice your Lordship may kindly be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties No.2,3 and 4 to show cause as to why they have violated the Govt. Guideline under Annexure-1 and gave engagement letter dated 10.5.2017 under Annexure-3 in favour of Opp. Party No.5 and why the A.D.M., Balasore upheld an illegal order by ignoring the inquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Security Officer. If to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may kindly be made absolute; And your Lordship may kindly be further pleased to quash the order under Annexures-3 and 7 for the interest of justice, And your Lordship may kindly be further pleased to direct the O.P.Nos.3 and 4 to give engagement to the Petitioner, who is the fittest candidate for Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre.” they fail 4. The stand of the State-opposite parties as reflected in the counter affidavit filed by the C.D.P.O. is that pursuant to the advertisement, four candidates including the Petitioner and private Opp.Party No.5 had submitted their applications. The application of one of the candidates namely, Smt. Manjurani Sur was cancelled by the Selection Committee as she did not W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 4 of 12 belong to the service area. It is stated that the Opp.Party No.5 is a resident of the service area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre as revealed from the field report and functionaries such as the Anganwadi Worker, in-charge Anganwadi Worker of Srikona-4 Anganwadi Centre and concerned area Lady Supervisor. Besides the above, the Opp. Party No.5 had submitted an affidavit at the time of filing of applications sworn before the court of the Executive Magistrate stating therein that she belongs to House No.87, Ward No.7 under Plot No.2100/6380, which is coming within the Anganwadi area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre. Further, the Tahasildar-cum- Revenue Officer, Sadar, Balasore had also issued residential certificate stating that the Opp.party No.5 is a native of the District of Balasore and that her family originally resides in Srikona. Her Voter Identity Card has also been issued as Susmita Maity, W/o. Alok Kumar Maity. That apart, as per the survey list, Opp.Party No.5 is a resident of the service area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre. In the selection process, W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 5 of 12 the Opp. Party No.5 secured more marks than all other candidates. As such, her selection and engagement as Anganwadi Worker was fully justified. The A.D.M. therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal being devoid of any merit. It is also stated that as per the report submitted by the Lady Supervisor on 15.12.2016, the Opp.Party No.5 had married Alok Kumar Maity in the year 2014 and has been residing in his house since then. The C.D.P.O. had published the notice on 19.10.2016 mentioning the name, address, educational qualification etc. as per the revised guidelines of the candidate. In such order the name of the father of Opp.Party No.5 was noted as Bhaskar Ch. Giri but by mistake the name of her husband Alok Maity was not written. But at the time of filing application, Smt. Giri had filled up the name of her father Bhaskar Ch. Giri and also of her husband Alok Maity. The allegation that the application form of Opp.Party No.5 was manipulated by someone in the Office of the C.D.P.O. is specifically denied. As such, it is stated that the W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 6 of 12 order of rejection of appeal by the A.D.M. is fully justified. 5. Heard Mr. P.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Be it noted that though Opp.Party No.5, pursuant to notice, had entered appearance through counsel but at the time of final hearing the counsel filed a Memo indicating that his client has instructed him not to proceed further and accordingly he submitted a no instruction Memo. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the A.D.M. in rejecting the appeal is entirely unacceptable on the face of clear manipulation of the name of the husband of the Opp.Party No.5 in the application form. The Opp.Party No.5 does not come within the service area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre, but in order to gain appointment she deliberately manipulated the W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 7 of 12 application form in connivance of the C.D.P.O. Instead of taking note of such serious manipulation and fraud committed by the petitioner, the A.D.M. dismissed the appeal ignoring the objection submitted by the Petitioner at the earlier instance as also the objections submitted by the villagers. Since the manipulation is tell-tale and apparent to the naked eye, the order passed by the A.D.M. cannot be sustained. 8. Per contra, Mr. Behera would argue that the application form was submitted by Opp. Party No.5 indicating the name of her father as well as her husband. It is a fact that while her father’s house is within the service area of Srikona-3 Anganwadi Centre, her matrimonial home comes within service area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre. As such, she is eligible for being selected as Anganwadi Worker of Srikona-5 Centre. Only because the Notification inviting objections published by the C.D.P.O. did not mention the name of the husband of the Opp.Party No.5 by mistake, the Petitioner is trying to take undue W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 8 of 12 advantage of such omission by filing appeal challenging her selection. However, all the other reports/documents clearly prove that the Opp.Party No.5 is in fact a resident of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre having married Alok Maity in the year 2014 and residing in her matrimonial home ever since. The mere fact that she had mentioned the name of her father also in the application form does not necessarily mean that she does not belong to the service of area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre. 9. A reading of the impugned order passed by the A.D.M. reveals that the Opp.Party No.5 married one Alok Kumar Maity in the year 2014 which is before issuance of the advertisement in question. At the time of submitting her application she had submitted an affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate indicating the name of her husband. Further, she also submitted a residential certificate indicating the name of her husband in the address. The dwelling house of her husband undisputedly comes within the service W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 9 of 12 area of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre as revealed from the joint enquiry report submitted by the C.D.P.O. and the Lady Supervisor. The A.D.M. did not find any reason to disbelieve the joint enquiry report. It has also not been demonstrated before this Court as to how the joint enquiry report of the C.D.P.O. and the Lady Supervisor is incorrect. Therefore, there appear to be adequate materials to show that the Opp.Party No.5 is in fact a resident of Srikona-5 Anganwadi Centre. It is also not disputed that she secured the highest marks among all candidates during the selection process. As regards the manipulation of the application form, the A.D.M. has held, and according to this Court rightly, that the application form being kept in the custody of the C.D.P.O. there is hardly any scope for anyone to manipulate the said form. Even otherwise, the C.D.P.O. in the counter has given a plausible explanation to the effect that in the notification published on 19.10.2016 inviting objections, he had inadvertently not mentioned the name of the husband of the Opp.Party No.5, but had mentioned the name of W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 10 of 12 her father. It is evident that because of such omission the Petitioner being a failed candidate submitted objection questioning the residential status of the Opp.Party No.5. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not been able to prove to satisfaction that the Opp. Party No.5 is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. It appears, only because of the inadvertent error in the Notification issued by the C.D.P.O. that a doubt has crept in, but in view of the overwhelming evidence to show that the Opp. Party No.5 is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area in question, there is no reason to hold otherwise. There is thus, no reason to find fault with the reasoning adopted by the A.D.M. in the impugned order. 10. From the foregoing facts therefore, it is evident that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference with the impugned order. This Court therefore, finds no reason to hold that the W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 11 of 12 impugned order passed by the A.D.M. is bad in law so as to be persuaded to interfere. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Dec-2024 12:14:42 W.P.(C) No. 5037 of 2018 Page 12 of 12