Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Pramila Kumbhar .… v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20212 of 2016 Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Pramila Kumbhar .…… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha and others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. Manas Chand, R.P. Mishra, A. Mohanty & K. Mansingh, Advocates.
Legal Reasoning
argue that this prima facie shows that the petitioner belongs to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question and therefore, the selection process could not have been cancelled and a fresh notification issued. Page 4 of 7 6. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned AGA referring to the enquiry report submits that though there is an asbestos house within the service area yet, no one is residing there and therefore, it cannot be definitely said that the petitioner is a resident of the service area. 7. After considering the submissions and on going through the documents enclosed to the writ application this Court finds that there is prima facie evidence that at least at the time of advertisement and selection, the petitioner was a resident of the service area of the Mini Anganwadi Centre as evident from the fact that there is an asbestos house of her husband there. Such fact finds support from the enquiry report filed by the State. Furthermore, perusal of the proceedings of the selection committee meeting reveals that it was somewhat mechanically held that nobody belongs to the service area without specifying as to which place the candidates belong, if not the service area. This is being said in view of notice dated 09.02.2013 inviting objections which clearly states that all the three candidates belong to the Page 5 of 7 service area. The finding of the selection committee therefore, appears to be erroneous. Under such circumstances, going for a fresh notification seems unjustified. 8.
Arguments
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 18th July, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp.parties to Page 1 of 7 show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or any other writ/write direction/direction, order/orders shall not be passed directing the Opp.parties to set aside/quash the notification letter No. 1567 on 03.11.2016 issued by the C.D.P.O. Biramaharajpur in respect of Gandhipada (Tikrapada) Mini Anganwadi Centre. And may pass any such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court think just and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Birmaharajpur in the district of Subaranpur on 19.11.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for their engagement as Anganwadi Workers in several Anganwadi Centres and Mini Anganwadi Centres. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted her application for Tikrapada-3 Mini Anganwadi Centre. As per the advertisement, the service area of Tikrapada-3 Mini Anganwadi Centre was Gandhipada and from the house of one Sankar Meher to the house of Rabi Meher. Three candidates had submitted their applications for the said Mini Anganwadi Centre in all. The CDPO after scrutinising the applications found all the applicants to be residents of the service area. The selection committee in its meeting held on 26.10.2016 however, held Page 2 of 7 that none of the candidates belong to the service area of Tikirapada Mini (Gandhipada) Anganwadi Centre area. As such, a decision was taken for re-notification regarding engagement of Anganwadi Worker for Tikrapada (Mini) Anganwadi Centre. Pursuant to such decision, a fresh notification was issued by the CDPO on 03.11.2016, which is impugned in the present writ application. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Gandhipada coming under the service area of Mini Anganwadi Centre. By means of an affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was staying with her husband and in-laws in a thatched house after her marriage, which was subsequently converted to an asbestos house at Gandhipada. After residing there for six to seven years, a new house was constructed by the side of Gandhipada to which the petitioner and her family has shifted. 3. An additional affidavit has been filed by the State, wherein the following has been stated under paragraph-5: Page 3 of 7 “5) That the Anganwadi Supervisor conducted a field enquiry with respect to the residential status of the petitioner and has submitted an enquiry report on 03.06.2024 after conducting enquiry in presence of the villagers and the petitioner Smt. Pramila Kumbhar stating therein that the petitioner is not residing within the Tikiripada Gandhipada Mini Anganwadi center area. Though within the area of Mini Anganwadi centre there is an asbestos house but nobody is residing there rather the petitioner Pramila Kumbhar is residing with her husband at Tikripada No.I Anganwadi Centre in their own house. Copy of the enquiry report dated the Anganwadi 03.06.2024 Supervisor is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C/5.” submitted by 4. On Perusal of the enquiry report as referred to in the above paragraph it is seen that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner was in fact a resident of Gandhipada and that she also has an asbestos house there, though no one is residing therein. There is no dispute that the said house comes within the service area of Tikrapada-3 Mini Anganwadi Centre as per the advertisement. 5. Mr. M.Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner would
Decision
For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the view that there is some prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner was a resident of the service area at least the relevant time. 9. In such view of the matter, the decision of the selection committee to go for fresh advertisement cannot be sustained. The writ application is therefore, allowed. The impugned notification dated 03.11.2016 is hereby quashed only in so far as it relates to Tikrapada Mini Anganwadi Centre. The Sub-Collector, Subarnapur being the Chairman of the Selection Committee is directed to consider the three applications including that of the petitioner received pursuant to the original advertisement dated 19.11.2012 and to take a decision regarding selection of the most suitable candidate among them. Page 6 of 7 10. It goes without saying that the selection committee shall take into consideration the enquiry report dated 03.06.2024, copy of which has been enclosed to the Additional Affidavit as Annexure-C/5. In doing so, it shall be open to the selection committee to consider the present residential status of all the three applicants. The whole exercise will be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 18th July, 2024/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jul-2024 12:29:48 Page 7 of 7