(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) AFR Pravati Bhatta v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6673 of 2022 (Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) AFR Pravati Bhatta …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. P.C. Chhinchani & P.K. Behera, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate M/s. Mr. L. Mohanty & S. Das, Advocates [For O.P. No.7] ____________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 29th July, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The order dated 03.02.2022 passed by ADM, Puri in Anganwadi Appeal No. 2 of 2015 is under challenge in the present writ application. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the CDPO, Puri on 21.01.2010 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in Page 1 of 11 35 Anganwadi Centers, the petitioner submitted her application in respect of Swainkera Anganwadi Center. After the selection process that followed, a list of eligible candidates was published by the CDPO, wherein the name of the petitioner and four other candidates was mentioned. Said list was published by the CDPO inviting objections. A select list was published on 25.03.2014 wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.2 while the name of one Jyotirmayeee Das was placed at serial No.1, even though she was absent at the time of verification of documents. Nothing further was done in the matter till 22.01.2015, on which date all the candidates were asked by the CDPO to resubmit the documents filed earlier by them in the year 2010 for reconstruction of the applications as the same were not available in the office. Pursuant to such notification, five candidates including the petitioner resubmitted the documents except Jyotirmayee Das, who did not attend the verification of documents held on 18.02.2015. While the matter stood thus, another advertisement was issued by the Page 2 of 11 CDPO on 23.12.2015 inviting applications in respect of 12 Anganwadi Centers including Swainkera Anganwadi Center and two mini Anganwadi Centers. The petitioner challenged said advertisement in an appeal filed before ADM, which was registered as Anganwadi Appeal No. 2/16. One Bijayalaxmi Mishra (opposite party No.6) had also filed an appeal earlier, being Anganwadi Appeal No. 2/15 challenging the candidature of the present petitioner on the ground that she is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common order. The ADM, after considering the contentions raised and the documents filed before him found that after receipt of objection on the issue of residence, a joint verification committee was constituted which reported on 25.03.2015 that the petitioner is not residing within the service area of Swainkera Anganwadi Center, though she has purchased a patch of land in that area. Further, another candidate was absent on the day of certificate verification for which her candidature was also rejected. The selection Page 3 of 11 committee also rejected the candidature of the other three applicants as they had not produced the residence proof at the time of the first advertisement. The candidatures of all candidates being thus rejected, the selection committee decided to publish a fresh notification. Taking note of the aforesaid, the ADM found no reason to interfere with the decision of the selection committee and the subsequent notification issued on 23.12.2015. Both the appeals were thus dismissed. 3. The State has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner was one of the five applicants and after verification of documents on 18.02.2015, the CDPO invited objections from the general public, pursuant to which the opposite party No.6 submitted a complaint against the petitioner questioning her residential status. As such, the selection committee enquired into the matter jointly on 25.03.2015 and came to know that the petitioner was married before the date of application i.e. 21.01.2010. She is the daughter of Fakirmohan Bhatta of Swainkera but Page 4 of 11 married to Ajay Kumar Hota of village Jhinkiria. After marriage, she is permanently residing in her father-in-law’s house before 2010. Basing on such finding, the selection committee rejected her candidature. Since other candidates were also found to be ineligible, the selection committee decided to go for fresh advertisement. The petitioner was never selected and her claim that the select list was published on 25.03.2014 is entirely misconceived. After rejection of the appeals by the ADM, the selection committee has selected opposite party No.7 as Anganwadi Worker on 07.03.2022 and she has been engaged as such as also discharging her duties satisfactorily. The claim of the petitioner is thus not tenable. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by private opposite party No.7 stating that she was appointed pursuant to selection process and in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20285 of 2020. The opposite party No.7 has been discharging her duties satisfactorily. Page 5 of 11 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by the State stating that despite her marriage, she has been residing in her parental house at Kerandipur under Swainkera Anganwadi Center with her husband. In the information obtained by one Purna Chandra Das under the RTI Act on 25.03.2014 it was informed that no one had been appointed for Swainkera Anganwadi Center till 25.04.2014 and that the post would be filled up as per direction of the Sub-Collector. Nothing was mentioned regarding the joint enquiry. The selection of opposite party No.7 during pendency of the appeals is entirely illegal. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in the selection list having secured 51.33 % marks. Jyotirmayee Das who had secured 55.40 % marks in the HSC examination was absent during document verification. As such, the petitioner ought to have been appointed instead of going for fresh advertisement. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Page 6 of 11 Advocate for the State and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 7. 7. Mr. Chhinchani would argue that the joint verification was conducted behind back of the petitioner. In any case, it was reported that the petitioner is staying in village Jhinkiria with her husband but she has purchased a patch of land in Swainkera. As per the guidelines, the petitioner had produced her residence certificate showing her to be a resident of Kerandipur village. Such certificate could not have been ignored. Fact remains that despite her marriage, the petitioner has been residing in the service area of Swainkera Anganwadi Center. The ADM has brushed aside the select list dated 25.03.2014 without any valid reason. Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Chhinchani, issuance of fresh advertisement is bad in law. 8. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State Counsel would argue that notwithstanding the resident certificate produced by the petitioner, the joint verification committee, after visiting the concerned village and interacting with the villagers found Page 7 of 11 that the petitioner had been residing in village Jhinkiria with her husband after her marriage prior to publication of the advertisement. This is essentially a finding of fact which the ADM rightly accepted. As such, the claim of the petitioner does not merit any consideration. 9. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party No.7 would argue that his client was selected in the selection process held pursuant to the second advertisement. Said advertisement was issued after rejection of the candidature of all the candidates pursuant to the first advertisement. Such rejection was on account of valid reasons. The ADM therefore, rightly rejected both the appeals. 10. The facts of the case as narrated are not disputed. The first thing that strikes the mind is the claim of the petitioner of being selected as per the select list dated 25.03.2014. Reference to the said list, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-4, reveals that the same is simply a list of candidates who had attended interview for the post of Page 8 of 11 Anganwadi Worker. The number ‘2’ is endorsed against the name of the petitioner, which is the rank. Jyortimayee Das was placed in the first rank but it is stated that she was absent at the time of document verification. The said list cannot be treated as the select list. In any case, it was never acted upon as the candidates were called upon to resubmit documents for reconstruction. Objection being raised with regard to residential status of the petitioner, the selection committee decided to conduct an enquiry through a joint verification committee comprising the BDO, CDPO and LSEO. The committee submitted report on 25.03.2015 that the petitioner is not residing within the service area of Swainkera Anganwadi Center though she has purchased a patch of land in that area. As such, her candidature was rejected by the selection committee in its meeting held on 07.04.2015. The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the report of the joint committee but then no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate as to how the report is wrong. Only because the petitioner has purchased a patch of land in the Page 9 of 11 area in question does not, ipso facto, make her a permanent resident of that area. Secondly, the resident certificate only shows residence of a person in a village whereas it is necessary for a candidate to be a resident of the service area of the center in question. The petitioner has not established such fact by adducing any cogent evidence either before the ADM or before this Court. Therefore, rejection of her candidature on such count cannot be faulted with. The ADM further found that the candidature of other four candidates was also rejected on valid grounds. As such, the decision of the selection committee to go for fresh advertisement also cannot be faulted with. The ADM must therefore, be held to have rightly declined to interfere with the decision of the selection committee to reject the candidature of the petitioner and other applicants as also to publish a fresh advertisement. As argued by learned counsel State Counsel, the finding regarding residence is one of pure fact, which this Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction, would be slow to interfere unless it is shown to be perverse. Such is not the Page 10 of 11 case here for which this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 29th July, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jul-2025 11:08:46 Page 11 of 11