The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 7567 of 2021 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- Jyotsnarani Hota@Nanda .... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. S. K. Dash, & S. Mohapatra, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik [Addl. Government Advocate] M/s. R.K. Sahu,P.K. Satapathy, P. Panda, Intervenor M/s. A. C. Mohanty & A. Mohanty, Advocates _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 05.04.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner challenges the notification dated 10.02.2021 issued by the CDPO, Gaisilet inviting Page 1 of 11 applications for selection and engagement of Anganwadi Worker for Raisalpadar-2 Anganwadi Center. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 11.12.2009 by the CDPO, Gaisilet Block in the district of Bargarh for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for the above mentioned Anganwadi Center, the petitioner and some other persons applied. One Jagnyseni Sahu was selected, purportedly for securing the highest marks among other candidates. The petitioner filed an appeal being AWW Appeal No 31 of 2010 before the ADM challenging such selection on the ground that the matriculation certificate submitted by the selected candidate was forged. The ADM however, dismissed the appeal against which, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 687 of 2012. This Court called upon the Controller of Examinations of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha to produce the tabulation sheet. It was revealed that said Jagnyseni Sahu had not secured 434 marks as claimed by her but had secured 353 marks. As such, the mark sheet produced by her before the selection committee was Page 2 of 11 proved to be not correct. On such findings, this Court by order dated 24.04.2019, set aside the engagement of Jagnyseni Sahu as also quashed the order of the ADM and left it open to the concerned authority to find out the proper person for giving engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of the Anganwadi Center. According to the petitioner, she having secured the second highest marks among all the candidates should have been selected after setting aside of the engagement of Jagnyseni Sahu by this Court, Instead, the CDPO published a fresh notification on 10.02.2021, which is impugned. The petitioner claims to have become over aged in the meantime. 3. Stand of the State authorities is that some villagers of Raisalpadar, suppressing the fact of passing of
Legal Reasoning
the order of this Court in W.P.( C) No. 687 of 2012, filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 27777 of 2020 with prayer to direct the Sub-Collector, Padmapur to take suitable action for disposal of their representation dated 29.02.2020 and to take fresh steps for floating of advertisement for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of the Page 3 of 11 center in question. This Court, by order dated 20.10.2020 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner therein to file a fresh representation, which was to be considered in accordance with law on its own merit. Accordingly, said petitioner submitted representation before the Collector, Bargarh. By order dated 17.12.2020, the Collector directed completion of the selection of Anganwadi worker observing the procedure afresh by calling fresh advertisement. It is also stated that after dismissal of W.P.(C) No 687 of 2012 Jagnyseni Sahu tendered her resignation on 19.12.2019, which was accepted on 31.12.2019 by the Sub-Collector. In the above background, the selection process in terms of the previous advertisement was in process but in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.27777 of 2020, the representation submitted by the villagers was considered and the Collector directed to go for fresh advertisement. 4. The stand of the Intervenor (opposite party No.5) is that the petitioner cannot claim to be appointed against the original advertisement since the selected Page 4 of 11 candidate had joined in the post. The select list was valid for only one year for which the petitioner cannot claim engagement after 12 years. Moreover, this Court in W.P.(C) No. 687 of 2012 never directed the authorities to give engagement to the petitioner but to find out the proper person. The Collector being the competent authority directed to call for fresh advertisement. The selected candidate resigned from her service on 19.12.2019, i.e., after 9 years. Therefore, the vacancy has to be treated as new vacancy for which fresh advertisement is justified. 5. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor-opposite party No. 5 6. Mr. Dash would argue that this Court in the earlier writ petition after taking note of the fraud played by the selected candidate set-aside her engagement and also quashed the order of the ADM in rejecting the appeal. Therefore, the direction to the authorities to select the proper person obviously means that selection is to be Page 5 of 11 made from out of the original select list. There was never any direction to issue fresh advertisement. Mr. Dash further argues that in the subsequent writ petition also there was no such direction but only to consider the representation which was purportedly submitted by some villagers, who had no locus standi. The Collector, without assigning any reason directed to go for fresh advertisement, which effectively nullifies the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 687 of 2012. 7. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that after setting aside of the engagement of the selected candidate by this Court, necessary steps were taken to process the selection in terms of the original advertisement. However, some persons having approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27777 of 2020 and this Court having directed the Collector to consider their representation, he rightly took the decision to go for fresh advertisement. 8. Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor-opposite party No.5 makes similar arguments as the State Counsel and further submits that Page 6 of 11 the original advertisement was of the year 2009. The selected candidate worked for as long as 9 years and thereafter resigned. Her resignation was accepted which implies that a casual vacancy was created. Under such circumstances, making selection from out of the select list of the previous advertisement, which has become invalid due to efflux of time, would have been entirely unjustified as several eligible candidates of the area like the intervenor would have been deprived from being considered for selection. 9. This Court finds that though one Jagnyseni Sahu was selected in the selection process pursuant to the original advertisement yet the same was found to be obtained by playing fraud in the form of submission of incorrect mark sheet. This Court in the earlier writ petition therefore set aside her engagement. Once her engagement is set aside, her subsequent tendering of resignation becomes redundant and meaningless. The argument that the original select list has become invalid due to efflux of time carries no weight for the reason that the petitioner challenged the selection by filling appeal in Page 7 of 11 terms of the guidelines. The rejection of the appeal was further challenged by her before this Court in W.P.(C) No.
Decision
687 of 2012. Said writ petition came to be disposed of on 24.04.2019. Therefore, the lis must be deemed to have been pending for all these years and therefore, shall not enure to the benefit of any other person save and except, the person who was litigating for all this time in view of the order finally passed. 10. Coming to the conduct of the selected candidate, this Court is reminded of the oft-quoted maxim-‘Fraud and justice never dwell together’. The proposition being so intrinsically embedded in our jurisprudence, no authority is required to be cited in support thereof. It is also well settled that all acts of fraud amount to nullity, meaning as if they never existed in the first place. A learned single judge of this Court having delved into the matter in detail to conclusively hold that the selected candidate had not secured the marks projected by her, could not have been selected and engaged as Angnwadi Worker. This finding by itself Page 8 of 11 fortifies the view that the selection of the selected candidate was nullity. 11. What would be the effect of the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition to the authorities to find out the proper person? This is sought to be interpreted by the intervenor-opposite party No.5 as being a direction to go for fresh advertisement. This Court is unable to agree with such contention-for the reason that had such been the intention of this Court, a direction to such effect would have been specifically issued. Under such circumstances, the direction to find out the proper person would obviously mean the most suitable person from out of the same list of candidates involved in the selection process. Viewed from another angle, if the authorities are allowed to go for fresh advertisement, it would nullify the entire efforts of the petitioner in successfully challenging the selection of the selected candidate. It would also have the effect of rendering the very provision of appeal in the guidelines otiose and redundant. Why should then one file an appeal in the first place? Perusal of the order of the Collector enclosed to the counter affidavit filed by the Page 9 of 11 State reveals that no reason whatsoever is cited for directing to go for fresh advertisement save and except ‘considering the grievance of the petitioner (representationist)’. It is evident that the Collector has also not applied his judicial mind to the true import of the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition. In so far as the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 27777 of 2020 in concerned, this Court finds that the same is in no manner in conflict with the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 687 of 2012. This Court had simply directed the Collector to consider the representation. 12. So, from what has been narrated hereinbefore, this Court is of the considered view that the decision to go for fresh advertisement is entirely unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the notification dated 10.02.2021 is held to be bad in law. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification vide annexure-8 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties-authorities are directed to select the most suitable candidate for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of the center in question by re-initiating the Page 10 of 11 selection process as per the earlier advertisement by excluding the earlier selected candidate as early as possible, preferably within a month from today and to give engagement to the candidate so selected. ……..………………….. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:38:21 Page 11 of 11