The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.275 of 2024 Mamata Behera …. Appellant State of Odisha and others -versus- …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For Appellant For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
dated 22.12.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2181 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017. 2. W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017 was filed by respondent No.5 herein whereas W.P.(C) No.2181 of 2019 was filed by the appellant under Article Page 1 of 9 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In order to appreciate the background in which the present writ appeal has been filed, we need to take note of certain essential facts, which are not in dispute. The appellant and respondent No.5 were the applicants for appointment as Anganwadi Helper at Kiarpur-II Anganwadi Centre under Soro Child Development Project, pursuant to an advertisement in that regard. The appellant was selected by the Mahila Sabha convened for the said purpose and was appointed vide letter dated 13.08.2015 issued by the Child Development Project Officer (‘CDPO’ in short), Soro, pursuant to which she submitted her joining report and started functioning as such. Soon thereafter, her service was terminated as communicated through letter dated 17.08.2015. The appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015 challenging the said order of termination dated 17.08.2015. The order dated 17.08.2015 was quashed by this Court by an order dated 01.09.2015 on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, reserving liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh upon giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 01.09.2015, the appellant was allowed to resume her duties. At the same time, a show-cause notice was issued to Page 2 of 9 her. When the appellant was discharging her duties with effect from 01.03.2017 in the light of this Court’s order passed in W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015, respondent No.5 approached this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017 seeking a direction to convene a Mahila Sabha to select an Anganwadi Helper. The said writ petition was
Arguments
Mr. B. K. Sahoo, Advocate Mr. M. K. Khuntia, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN JUDGMENT 20.03.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. 1. The appellant has put to challenge a common judgment and order
Decision
disposed of by an order of this Court dated 03.07.2017 with a direction to the CDPO, Soro to convene a Mahila Sabha, as early as possible, preferably within three months and select an Anganwadi Helper. In the meanwhile, an explanation was sought for from the appellant pursuant to which, she had submitted her explanation. Later, by an order dated 13.03.2018, the CDPO terminated the service of the appellant, in the light of liberty granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017. The CDPO convened a fresh Mahila Sabha to select an Anganwadi Helper for Kiarpur-II Anganwadi Centre wherein respondent No.5 came to be appointed by an order dated 29.03.2018. The appellant, in the meanwhile, filed a review petition giving rise to RVWPET No.287 of 2017 seeking recall of the order dated 03.07.2017 passed by this Court, mainly on the ground that neither the fact that she was working as the Anganwadi Helper was disclosed in the writ petition nor she was heard in the said proceeding. It is worthwhile mentioning that during the pendency of the said review petition seeking Page 3 of 9 recall of the order dated 03.07.2017, the appellant’s service was terminated on 13.03.2018, as has been noted above. 4. Noticing the crucial fact that respondent No.5 had not disclosed about the appellant’s continuance as Anganwadi Helper in W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017, this Court, by an order dated 24.07.2018 reviewed and recalled the order dated 03.07.2017 with a direction for restoration of W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017 to its original file. 5. It can be easily discerned from the above noted facts that the appellant’s selection as Anganwadi Helper was challenged in W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017 by respondent No.5, which was disposed of by an order dated 03.07.2017 with a direction to convene a Mahila Sabha. It is also noted that the appellant’s service as Anganwadi Helper itself was terminated by an order dated 17.08.2015, which had become subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015. On the sole ground of breach of principles of natural justice, the said writ petition was allowed quashing the order dated 17.08.2015 with a liberty to the competent authority to proceed afresh after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing. The opportunity of hearing was provided and with the issuance of an order dated 13.03.2018, the appellant’s service was terminated. The appellant put to Page 4 of 9 challenge the said order of termination dated 13.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No.2181 of 2019. It is also evident that after termination of service of the appellant, a Mahila Sabha was held in which respondent No.5 came to be selected. This is the background in which two matters i.e. W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017, which was restored to its original file upon recall of the order of disposal, and W.P.(C) No.2181 of 2019 came to be heard together by the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned Single Judge, after having noticed the pleadings on record in both the writ petitions, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as noted above, the background in which the matter was remanded by this Court by an order dated 01.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015 in which order of termination of service of the appellant was under challenge on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as also taking into account the facts and circumstances, has concluded in paragraphs-24, 25 and 26 of the impugned judgment and order as under: “24. While challenging the disengagement order, Smt. Behera had filed a WP(C) No. 15752/2015 and which was disposed off on 01.09.2015 with a direction to the competent authority to proceed afresh providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to take a decision in accordance to the law. In compliance to the above directives of the High Court, SSW Misc case No.14/2015 was instituted and was disposed of in letter and spirit to the directives of the Court. The Sub-Collector, Balasore had given order for providing Page 5 of 9 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Smt. Mamata Behera and also directed that she should be paid remuneration for the period she had actually worked in the centre. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted her show cause on 02/03/2017 and joined as AWH in Kiarpur- II AWC. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was accorded an opportunity to be heard and there has been no violation of principles of natural justice. 25. Smt. Supriti Puhan, the present AWH of Kiarpur-II AWC had filed a W.P. (C) No. 10935/2017 before this Court which was disposed on 03/07/2017 with a direction to the CDPO, Soro to convene fresh mahila sabha within a period of three months. Smt. Puhan had further filed a CONTC No. 09/2018 before this Court with a prayer for early implementation of the kind orders dated 03/07/2017 passed by Odisha High Court, Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 10935/2017. 26. Accordingly, in order to convene fresh Mahila Sabha for selection of AWH at Kiarpur-II AWC and to implement the orders dated 03/07/2017 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.10935/2017, the CDPO, Soro had published Notification No. 182 Dated 13/03/2018. Accordingly, both Mamata Behera, Smt. Supriti Puhan and another candidate named Smt. Padmabati Bala had applied for the post of AWH in Kiarpur-II AWC. The Mahila Sabha was conducted at Kiarpur U.P. School on 23/03/2018 in presence of concerned officials, village ladies under police protection. Smt. Supriti Puhan secured the highest numbers of votes in the Mahila Sabha selected as AWH in Kiarpur-II AWC. She had been issued with engagement letter No.252 dated 29/03/2018 and she has been continuing as AWH under Kiarpur-II AWC till date.” 7. Mr. B. K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that by convening a Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper on 13.03.2018, the CDPO, in fact, complied Page 6 of 9 with this Court’s order dated 03.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017, which was later recalled. He has submitted that respondent No.5 had intentionally withheld the fact that the appellant was still continuing as Anganwadi Helper, in her writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017, and surreptitiously obtained the order dated 03.07.2017 of this Court whereby learned Single Judge had directed the CDPO, Soro to convene Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper. He submits that by convening Mahila Sabha, the CDPO has given effect to the order of this Court, which was already recalled upon a review petition filed by the appellant and, therefore, the selection of respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Helper is illegal, which aspect has not been duly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 8. We do not find any merit in the submissions so advanced on behalf of the appellant. Before the learned Single Judge, there were two writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017, which was filed by respondent No.5 seeking a direction to convene Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper. As has been noted above, the appellant’s selection as Anganwadi Helper was set aside in 2015 itself, soon after her selection, by the competent authority, which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015 and was disposed of with a liberty to Page 7 of 9 the competent authority to pass an order afresh after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing since she was not found to have been heard before passing of the said order of termination. It is in compliance of the said order passed in W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015 that after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing, her service was terminated by an order dated 13.03.2018. The submission that the Mahila Sabha was convened in compliance of the order dated 03.07.2017 of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.10935 of 2017 preposterous. The Mahila Sabha was apparently convened after the order terminating the service of the appellant was issued. Before the learned Single Judge, all the facts pleaded by the parties and the submissions made were on record and after having considered rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned judgment and order. 9. It is palpable that the appellant continued to serve as Anganwadi Helper despite termination of her service by an order dated 17.08.2015 because of this Court’s order dated 01.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.15752 of 2015 by which the said order was set aside on technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the service of the appellant came to be terminated by a subsequent order after giving her an Page 8 of 9 opportunity of hearing, which fact has been aptly discussed and noted by learned Single Judge. The Mahila Sabha was convened in which admittedly respondent No.5 secured highest number of votes. 10. In view of the facts noted above and the reasons assigned, we do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the present intra-Court appeal. 11. This appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge M. Panda Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Apr-2024 15:29:45 Page 9 of 9