The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.283 of 2023 Gitanjali Mohapatra …. Appellant Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate and associates -versus- Anita Behera and others Respondents Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, A.S.C. for the State …. Order No. 01. CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 22.02.2023 1. The challenge in the present writ appeal is to a judgment dated 6th February 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.8716 of 2020 filed by Respondent No.1-Anita Behera. 2. By the said impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge recalled the earlier order dated 27th January 2020 passed by the Court in W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017 and directed that Respondent No.1 shall be immediately reinstated in her Post as Anganwadi Worker (AWW) of the Kialanda Anganwadi Centre (AWC in question) under the CDPO, Delang in the District of Puri. 3. The background facts are that an advertisement was issued in 2006 for appointment of an AWW at the aforementioned AWC. One Mamatanjali Biswal was initially appointed as AWW on 20th December, 2008. She, however, resigned on 15th January, 2009. Meanwhile, the present Appellant filed AWW Misc. Appeal Case No.23 of 2009 before the Sub-Collector, Puri stating that she Page 1 of 5 should be engaged as AWW as she was in the second position in the merit list. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sukanti Jena v. State of Odisha 2013(1) OLR 391 in support of such prayer. However, the said appeal was rejected by the Sub- Collector, Puri on 23rd November, 2017. 4. Challenging the above order, W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017 was filed by the present Appellant in this Court. 5. Meanwhile, there was a fresh advertisement issued on 30th November 2017 which was neither questioned by the Appellant nor was any stay of the process of selection pursuant to the said advertisement sought for or granted. Pursuant to the fresh advertisement, Respondent No.1 figured in the first position in the merit list. It may be noted here that the present Appellant did not participate in the selection process pursuant to the fresh advertisement. 6. It appears that in W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017, there was an interim order passed on 5th January 2018 by the learned Single Judge stating that any action pursuant to the fresh advertisement would be “subject to the result of the writ petition”. By this, it became clear that not only was the Appellant aware of the fresh advertisement, but the above interim order itself made clear that the steps taken pursuant thereto would be subject to the result of the writ petition. 7. The selection of Respondent No.1 as the successful candidate in the fresh selection was definitely known to the Government although the Appellant claims that she was unaware of that Page 2 of 5 development. As a result, Respondent No.1 was not made a party to W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017. The said writ petition was then heard by the learned Single Judge, without the participation of Respondent No.1 and an order was passed on 27th January 2020 quashing the order dated 23rd November, 2017 passed by the Sub- Collector, Puri in AWW Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2009. A direction was issued to consider the case of the present Appellant in light of the judgment in Sukanti Jena v. State of Odisha (supra) and engage the Appellant as AWW of the AWC in question. 8. It is in the above circumstances that Respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No.8716 of 2020 seeking recall of the above order dated 27th January 2020, which had been passed behind her back depriving her of being engaged as AWW. 9. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned order dated 6th February 2023 noted the sequence of facts. This clearly reveals that prior to the order dated 27th January 2020, the selection process pursuant to the fresh advertisement was already completed and Respondent No.1 stood selected for being engaged as AWW at the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 28th December, 2017. She had joined as AWW on the following day, i.e., 29th December, 2017. 10. Despite all these facts being known to the Government, no effort was made to bring these developments to the notice of the learned Single Judge who was hearing W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017. It was obvious that Respondent No.1 had to be made a party to that writ petition as any decision in favour of the present Appellant, who was the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017, would Page 3 of 5 have a direct adverse impact on Respondent No.1. It is in this context that it was pleaded by Respondent No.1 in her writ petition [W.P.(C) No.8716 of 2020] that a fraud had been played on the Court by suppressing the subsequent developments, i.e., the events taking place after the filing of the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant repeatedly urged that the Appellant was not aware of the fact that Respondent No.1 had been selected pursuant to the fresh advertisement and even the Government did not bring this fact to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the order dated 27th January, 2020 was passed. 12. It must be remembered that when the order dated 27th January 2020 was not complied with by the State, the present Appellant filed CONTC No.1635 of 2020 in which an order was passed on 10th June, 2020 directing the Appellant to be immediately reinstated as AWW and be allowed to continue in service. Even in the contempt case, when the order dated 10th June, 2020 was passed the Court’s attention was not drawn to the fact that Respondent No.1 had in the meanwhile been selected and engaged as AWW pursuant to the fresh advertisement. With the Appellant certainly being aware that during the pendency of her writ petition, the selection pursuant to the fresh advertisement was already taking place, the Appellant could not plead innocence about not finding out who was selected pursuant to that fresh advertisement. The interim order itself made it imperative for the Appellant to ascertain the result of the selection process pursuant to the fresh advertisement. In other words, the Appellant cannot possibly plead ignorance of that development. Page 4 of 5 13. Therefore, notwithstanding that it was inexcusable for the State not to have brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge the fact that Respondent No.1 had in fact been selected as AWW pursuant to the fresh advertisement, an equal responsibility lay on the Appellant as well since she was aware that the process of selection pursuant to the fresh advertisement had not been stayed and all that had been done by the interim order was to clarify that that process would be subject to the result of W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017 filed by the Appellant. 14. No order in the Appellant’s writ petition [W.P.(C) No.26347 of 2017] could have been passed without impleading Respondent No.1 as party. The learned Single Judge has rightly therefore recalled the order dated 27th January 2020 in the said writ petition and directed that Respondent No.1 should immediately be put back as AWW of the AWC in question. 15. Having carefully considered the above submissions of learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court is not persuaded that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge which calls for interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice Judge (M.S. Raman) S.K. Guin Page 5 of 5