Mr. A. Tripathy & A. Sahoo Advocates v. For Opp. Parties
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 5333 and 5545 of 2025 Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. W.P. (C) No. 5333 of 2025 --------------- Nagma Parbin …. Petitioner -versus- Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Cuttack and Others …. Opp. Parties W.P.(C) No. 5545 of 2025 Wahida Khatun …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A. Tripathy & A. Sahoo Advocates Vs. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, (Additional Government Advocate) M/s. A.P. Bose, D. J. Sahoo, M.K. Panda, S. Swain, D. Sahoo & D.K. Sethy, Advocates [ in W.P.(C) No. 5333 of 2025] Page 1 of 17 For Petitioner : M/s. A. P. Bose, M.K. Panda, D.K. Sethy, Advocates Vs.
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, (Additional Government Advocate) M/s. A. Tripathy, A. Sahoo Advocates [ in W.P.(C) No. 5545 of 2025] __________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 04.07.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Both the writ petitions are directed against the same order and involve common facts for which, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Be it noted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5333 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to by her name, Nagma Parbin) has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the RDC(CD), Cuttack in Anganwadi Second Appeal No.1 of 2024 in so far as it Page 2 of 17 relates to holding her as not eligible for the post of Anganwadi worker for Panisandha(C) Anganwadi Center and for a direction to the concerned authorities to appoint her as such. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5545 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to by her name, Wahida Khatun) has filed the writ petition also challenging the aforementioned order passed by the RDC(CD), Cuttack whereby she was also held not eligible for the post of Anganwadi worker of the aforesaid Anganwadi center. 4. The facts common to both the writ petitions are as follows:- 4.1. An advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Bhograi on 29.10.2022 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Workers of different Anganwadi centers including Panisandha(C) Anganwadi center, pursuant to which, both the petitioners submitted their applications. 4.2. The Selection Committee in its meeting held on 05.01.2023 selected Wahida Khatun for the post, even Page 3 of 17 though she had secured the second highest mark. The candidature of Nagma Parbin was rejected on the ground that she does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi center. 4.3. Nagma Parbin challenged the selection of Wahida Khatun in Anganwadi Appeal No.1 of 2023 before the ADM, Balasore. 4.4. By order dated 15.02.2024, the ADM allowed the appeal and set aside the selection of Wahida Khatun with direction to the CDPO, Bhograi to disengage her and to engage Nagma Parbin as Anganwadi worker of the center. 4.5. Wahida Khatun approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5639 of 2024 challenging the order passed by the ADM but the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 05.04.2024 granting liberty to her to prefer Second Appeal. 4.6. As such, Wahida Khatun preferred appeal (Misc. Anganwadi Appeal No.1 of 2024) before the RDC(CD), Cuttack. Page 4 of 17 4.7. The appeal was heard and disposed of on 10.02.2025 by the RDC holding that both Wahida Khatun and Nagma Parbin are not eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker of the center in question and the Sub- Collector, Balasore was directed to take further steps accordingly. 4.8. According to Nagma Parbin, the impugned order in so far as it holds her as ineligible for the post on the ground that she does not belong to the service area in question is bad in law being contrary to facts. On the other hand, Wahida Khatun assails the finding of the RDC (CD), Cuttack that she could not submit evidence of documentary proof of her passing Odia upto Class-VII standard in her application before the due date is erroneous. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State in both the writ petitions, it is stated that pursuant to the advertisement fourteen candidates had applied, out of whom seven participated in the selection process. Nagma Parbin secured the highest marks while Wahida Khatun Page 5 of 17 secured the second highest marks. After completion of selection process, notice was published by the CDPO on 23.11.2022 inviting objections. Allegation was received from the villagers of the Panisandha(C) area to the effect that Nagma Parbin is not a resident of the service area as she is a resident of Panisandha(B) service area. The CDPO, Bhograi inquired into the matter by directing the Lady Supervisor, Anganwadi Worker of Panisandha (B) center, in-charge Anganwadi worker of Panisandha(C) center, ASHA and concerned ANM to submit a report. Pursuant to such instructions, the Lady Supervisor submitted report on 05.12.2022 stating that Nagma Parbin is a resident of Panisandha(B) service area and also submitted documentary proof. After receiving the reports as well as survey registers etc., the Selection Committee rejected the candidature/selection of Nagma Parbin and selected Wahida Khatun as she had secured the second highest marks. It is further stated that Nagma Parbin is married to one Sk. Elias and left her in-laws house and applied for residential certificate by residing in her father’s house and also obtained a letter from the concerned Sarpanch stating Page 6 of 17 that she was staying in her parent’s house within Panisandha(C) center. After receiving the letter of the Sarpanch, In-charge Anganwadi worker of Panisandha(C) center inquired into the matter by collecting data from other functionaries such as, the concerned ANM, ASHA and Anganwadi worker of Panisandha (B) center. From the inquiry, it was revealed that after marriage Nagma Parbin was residing in her in-laws house. She participated in the selection process after obtaining residential certificate. But she is not residing in her father’s house. Her in-laws’ house is situated under Panisandha(B) center. She was therefore, rightly disqualified. It is further stated that both the candidates have studied and passed HSC from the same school, i.e., P.P. Nodal Vidyamandir, Kalahi having 1st language Urdu Wahida Khatun produced +2 examination certificate indicating that her elected optional subject was Odia, which was uploaded, while applying to the post. 6. In the writ petition filed by Nagma Parbin, counter has also been filed by Wahida Khatun, inter alia, stating that Nagma Parbin being an outsider to the Page 7 of 17 Panisandha (C) center, is not eligible to apply and that she resides in her in-laws house which comes under the service area of Panisandha (B) center. Further, she never obtained the application form in her name but the form was obtained by her mother, Najina Bibi. She submitted false affidavit mentioning House No.127, which is actually her mother’s house, only to apply pursuant to the advertisement. In course of enquiry, it was found that Najina Bibi is a resident of Panisandha(B) center and has never received any benefits like Ration, Anganwadi benefits and other government aids from Panisandha(C) center. She also applied as daughter of Nojrul Hussain Khan, even though she was married. It is further stated that both of them have passed the HSC examination from the same school, where the 1st language was Urdu but medium of instructions in other subjects like Mathematics, General Science and Social Science was Odia being controlled by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha from Class-I to Class-X. As such, there is no need to produce the document. The finding of the RDC is therefore bad in law. Page 8 of 17 It is also stated that Nagma Parbin was working in the post of CRP (CM) in the same block. 7. A comprehensive rejoinder has been filed by Nagma Parbin, which is identical to the comprehensive counter affidavit filed by her in the writ petition filed by Wahida Khatun. It is stated that she had secured the highest marks for which she was selected but the Lady Supervisor deliberately submitted a report on 11.11.2022 showing her as a resident of Panisandha(B) service area only to reject her application. Further, she had submitted a certificate of having passed Class-VII standard in Odia medium, which Wahida Khatun had not. There is no proof of receipt of allegation by the villagers on 16.11.2022 nor the same is placed before this Court. To the best of the knowledge of Nagma Parbin no such allegation was ever received. 8. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. A. Tripathy for the petitioner, Nagma Parbin in W.P.(C) No.5333 of 2025, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner-Wahida Khatun in W.P.(C) No. 5545 of 2025 Page 9 of 17 and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 9. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel would argue that the 1st Appellate Authority rightly discarded the report of the concerned Lady Supervisor as per which Nagma Parbin was said to be a permanent resident of her in-laws’ house since the date of her marriage as the same was deliberately prepared to reject her application. On the other hand, the residential certificate issued by the competent authority clearly shows that she is a resident of the same village, which was never challenged or cancelled. She had submitted proof of passing Odia upto Class-VII standard along with her application, whereas the other candidate had not. The residential certificate was issued mentioning the name of her father and it is not disputed that her father’s house is situated within the service area of Panisandha(C) center. According to Mr. Tripathy therefore, the reasoning adopted by the RDC to reject the residential certificate is completely wrong. She had also submitted proof of residence in the form of certificate by the Page 10 of 17 concerned Sarpanch, which was never considered. That apart, she admittedly secured the highest marks among all contesting candidates. 10. Mr. A.P. Bose, on the other hand, assails the findings of the RDC that she could not submit evidence of having furnished documentary proof of passing Odia upto Class-VII standard along with her application. Since there is no dispute that Wahida Khatun had passed her HSC examination from P.P. Nodal Vidyamandir, Kalahi and had produced certificate from the Headmaster of the said school that she had passed Class-VII with Odia as 1st language, it cannot be said that she had not submitted the required documentary proof. That apart, the fact that the medium of instruction in other subjects is Odia has never been considered by the RDC. Since there is no dispute with regard to the residence of Wahida Khatun being within the service area of Panisandha(C) center and she had produced her HSC certificate, treating her as not eligible as per the impugned order is unsustainable. Page 11 of 17 11. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would argue that the candidature of Nagma Parbin was rejected as she does not belong to the service area of the center in question. She took the plea of residing in her father’s house, which comes under the service area of Panisandha(C) center, though after marriage in 2021 she was residing in her in-laws house, which comes under the service area of Panisandha(B) center. Her candidature was therefore rightly rejected. As regards the candidature of Wahida Khatun, Mr. Patnaik would argue that though she, like Nagma Parbin passed HSC from P.P. Nodal Vidyamandir with her 1st language subject Urdu, no proof was adduced that she had passed such examination with Odia as a subject as required in the advertisement. Her candidature was also therefore, rightly rejected. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced vis-(cid:224)-vis the materials on record. Initially, the candidature of Nagma Parbin, despite the fact that she had secured the highest marks, was rejected on Page 12 of 17 the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of Panisandha(C) center. It appears that basing on some allegations received from the villagers, the matter was inquired into on the instructions of the CDPO. The Lady Supervisor submitted report clearly stating that Nagma Parbin resides in her in-laws’ house, which is within the service area of Panisandha(B) center. The ADM discarded the report of the Lady Supervisor by holding that “It may be presumed that, the report has been prepared deliberately to reject the application of the appellant” (Nagma Parbin). So, the facts ascertained from the inquiry conducted by the Lady Supervisor and other functionaries were rejected entirely on presumption. The order passed by the ADM does not contain even a whisper as to what prompted him to draw such a presumption. Nothing has been placed by the petitioner Nagma Parbin to suggest any malafides on the part of the Lady Supervisor to deliberately distort facts against her. Even otherwise, it is not comprehended as to what axe the Lady Supervisor had to grind against her so as to be prompted to distort facts in her report. The RDC being the Second Appellate Authority must therefore, be Page 13 of 17 held to have rightly rejected the above finding of the ADM based entirely on presumption. 13. It is further seen that Nagma Parbin relies upon the residential certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar in her favour. However, as held by the RDC and according to this Court, rightly so, the same would not be of much assistance to her as residential certificate is issued indicating the residence in a particular village and not of a particular area of the village. The question is not so much whether Nagma Parbin was a resident of Panisandha village but whether she was a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi center in question in the same village or not. The petitioner–Nagma Parbin has taken a stand that her marriage being against the consent of her in-laws, she has been residing in her parent’s house ever since along with her husband, who is a domesticated son-in-law. However, no proof worth the name was adduced by her to even remotely support such plea. Thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the RDC regarding lack of eligibility of the petitioner -Nagma Parbin for want of Page 14 of 17 proof that she is a resident of the service area of Panisandha (C) center. 14. As regards the rejection of the claim of Wahida Khatun, who was originally selected having secured the 2nd highest marks, the RDC has held that she could not adduce any evidence to show that she had submitted proof of her passing Odia upto Class-VII standard along with her application before the due date. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for her has argued that having produced the HSC certificate, no further certificate is required to be adduced as the same inherently proves that she had received her education in Odia medium. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the advertisement, which stipulates that the candidates must have passed matriculation with Odia as a subject (Odia Bisayabastu sahita matric pass hoithiba abasyaka). In case, the candidate has not passed matriculation in Odia but has passed matriculation from an equivalent secondary board then she is to adduce proof of having passed Class-VII standard in Odia language examination as conducted by Page 15 of 17 the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. The petitioner- Wahida Khatun has enclosed her HSC certificate of the matriculation examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa with the following subjects:- 1. First Language-Urdu 2. Second Language-English 3. Mathematics 4. General Science 5. Social Science She also claims to have enclosed a certificate issued by the Headmaster of the concerned school that upto Class-VII, Odia was her first language. Two things are evident:- Firstly, the HSC examination certificate does not ipso facto prove that the petitioner-Wahida Khatun had passed Class-VII in Odia. Secondly, she has not passed Matriculation with Odia as a subject. Thirdly, the argument that the medium of instruction in subjects other than language, such as Mathematics, General Science and Social Science was Odia is of no help to her in view of the specific requirement as mentioned in the advertisement. There is no gainsaying that the terms of the advertisement are to be construed strictly. As regards the certificate purportedly issued by the Headmaster, this Court, in the Page 16 of 17 absence of any clear-cut official proof, is not inclined to place any reliance thereon. This Court, therefore, finds nothing wrong in the finding of the RDC with regard to non-submission of proof regarding passing of Odia of Class-VII standard by Wahida Khatun. 15. In the final analysis and in view of the foregoing narration, this Court holds that the finding of the RDC that neither of the candidates are eligible for being engaged as Anganwadi worker of Panisandha(C) center does not warrant any interference. 16.
Decision
In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are therefore, dismissed. ..……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 4th July, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 07-Jul-2025 20:21:34 Page 17 of 17