The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Minakhi Behera … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.L.N.Rayatsingh, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.R.Dash, A.G.A --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 18.7.2024. Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer; “In the light of the above facts and circumstances Your Lordship may graciously be please to allow this petition and be pleased to direct the opp. party No. 3 to give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Tarapada - 2 Anganwadi Centre, Kanas, Dist - Puri within a stipulated time period pursuant to W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 1 of 7 the revised guidelines at para - 7(i)(f) framed by the State Govt., for the interest of justice. And pass any other order (s)/direction(s)/writ(s) as deem just and proper.” 2. The case of the Petitioner, briefly stated, is that an advertisement was issued on 10.9.2019 by the CDPO, Kanas in the district of Puri inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Tarapada-2 Anganwadi Centre under Barasa Grama Panchayat and another Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner submitted her application for engagement in Tarapada-2 Anganwadi Centre. There was another applicant namely, Priyanka Paikaray. Their applications were considered and their documents were verified by the Committee headed by CDPO and thereafter placed before the Selection Committee with the Petitioner being placed at Sl. No.1. At this stage objection was invited by Notice dated 26.9.2019 on such selection. Thereafter, no further action was taken for which the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition. W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 2 of 7 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by State (Opposite Parties 2 and 3) admitting all the relevant facts. It is, however, stated that pursuant to notice inviting objection, a letter of number of villagers of Tarapada-2 and of one Lipi Behera was received to the effect that they were not aware of the said advertisement. It is also stated that the procedure as per Government guidelines for appointment of Anganwadi Worker had been followed, but due to such objections raised by the villagers, the appointment could not be finalized. 4. The Petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the advertisement was affixed in the Grama Panchayat Office being duly signed by the Sarpanch and Ward Member. Therefore, it cannot be said that the public was not aware of the advertisement.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. L.N.Rayatsingh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 3 of 7 6. Mr. Rayatsingh would submit that there being only two applications received including that of the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement and there being also a process of selection in which the Petitioner found was to be more suitable than the other candidate, there was no reason for the authority to stop the selection process mid-way. He further submits that the so-called objection raised by the villagers and Lipi Behera are untenable. Moreover, said Lipi Behera had submitted her objection indicating that she was interested for the post of Teacher and not Anganwadi Worker. 7. Mr. Dash would submit that the procedure laid down in the guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Worker issued by the Government of Odisha on 02.5.2007 have been scrupulously followed. Since an allegation was made that the general public were not aware of the advertisement, the selection process could not be continued further. W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 4 of 7 8. This Court finds that the basic facts of the case are not disputed. In fact, the State authorities have admitted the relevant facts in the counter affidavit as follows; to for “That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that in the Advertisement No. 546, dated pursuance 10.09.2019 at Annexure-A/3, two persons including the petitioner had applied the appointment of Anganwadi Worker. The verification was made on 25.09.2019. Copy of the verification report dated 25.09.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B/3. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that after verification of documents the CDPO, Kanas vide this Office Letter No-584, dated 26.09.2019, invited objections from the villagers of the area concerned. Copy of Office Letter No-584, date 26.09.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C/3 As per the above letter a number of villagers of Tarapara-II & also Lipi Behera, W/o-Lingaraj Behera had made an objections that they were not aware of the said advertisement. Copies of objections are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D/3 Series. It is also humbly submitted that on dated 30.09.2019 objecting the process of appointment and alleging about insufficient notice inviting applications at Annexure-A/3, applied for appointment as Anganwadi Worker for Tarapada-2 Anganwadi Centre. The application of Lipi Behera was forwarded by Opp. Party No. 2 to Opp. Party No. 3 for a report with proper enquiry. letter no.7837 dated 25.10.2019 Copy of annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-E/3.” is 9. It is further seen that in view of the objection raised by the villagers, the matter was referred to the Sub-Collector, Puri, who directed the CDPO to conduct inquiry. However, no final order has yet been passed W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 5 of 7 by the Sub-Collector. In the inquiry report submitted by the CDPO, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure- F/3, it is simply stated that in course of inquiry the villagers claimed that they had no knowledge of the advertisement and their signatures have been obtained. The stand taken by the State appears to be contradictory inasmuch as at one place it is categorically stated that all the procedure laid down in the guidelines were followed but at another place, reference has been made to the allegations submitted by the villagers. Unless it is the specific case of any person that the advertisement was never actually published, no inference can be drawn simply on an objection that it was not within the knowledge of the general public. Moreover, this Court finds that the State also accepts that there were applicants including the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement. It is nobody’s case that there was any foul play involved to somehow restrict the advertisement to only two persons rather than the general public. The report of the CDPO is also not conclusive inasmuch as the W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 6 of 7 advertisement was issued in 2019 whereas the inquiry was conducted much later i.e. in the year 2023. That apart, the Sub-Collector has not passed any final order as yet.
Decision
10. Such being the factual position, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Collector, Puri (Opposite Party No.2) to take a final decision in the matter as early as possible preferably, within four weeks from today. It is needless to mention that unless any concrete evidence of foul play with regard to publication of the advertisement is found, the process of selection already initiated shall be taken to its logical conclusion without any further delay. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2024 12:12:25 W.P.(C) No.4618 of 2023 Page 7 of 7