The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22827 of 2016 Gitanjali Barik State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. B. K. Routray, Adv. …. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Mund, A.G.A. Mr. M. K. Sahoo, Adv. (for O.P.6) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 23.11.2023 10. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner not only challenges the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jajpur in A.W.W. Misc. Appeal Case No.22 of 2015, but also challenges the inaction of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5. 4. Factual scenario of the case in brevity remains:- (i) Pursuant to the publication of the notice no.26 dated 04/01/2014 by the Opposite Party No.5/C.D.P.O., Danagadi for the post of Anganwadi Workers in respect Page 1 of 10 // 2 // of different Anganwadi Centers under Danagadi Integrated Children Development Office, Jajpur District, the present Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.6 along with some other women named Sunanda Jena, Nirupama Nayak, Susama Sahoo and Lipika Panda applied for the aforesaid post in respect of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center under Nachhipura Gram Panchayat. (ii) After submission of application, Nirupama Nayak and Lipika Panda being unmarried and below 35 years old girl, were found ineligible. Sunanda Jena was found to have secured less mark than the Petitioner in the H.S.C. Examination, for which her candidature was also turned down. Since Satyabhama Prusty / Opposite Party No.6 and another Susama Sahoo do not belong to Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center Area, the Petitioner claimed herself to be the only befitting candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center. (iii) Thereafter, the Petitioner sought for the required information under the R.T.I. Act from the Opposite Party No. 5 regarding the names of the Head of the Family under Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center Area. Pursuant to which the Opposite Party No.5 vide his Office Letter No. 334 dated 04/07/2015 provided the required Page 2 of 10 // 3 // information. From which, it clearly appears from the Serial No. 24 that Durjodhan Barik, father-in-law of the Petitioner belongs to Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center Area, whereas no such name of the head of the Family the Opposite Party No.6 appears in the said list. (iv) The Petitioner here alleges that despite such information through the R.T.I. Act, the Selection Committee strangely selected the Opposite Party No.6 only considering her higher percentage of Marks in the H.S.C Examination. But the said Committee has wrongly taken the full marks secured in the H.S.C Examination i.e. 600 instead of 700. She has secured only 318 Marks in her H.S.C Examination, as such her percentage of marks is only 45% and not 53%, as has been awarded by the Selection Committee. (v) Therefore, she is only entitled to get 5% extra marks for her higher qualification i.e. for +2 Arts. As such, her total percentage of mark is only 50% and not 58%, which has been awarded. However, the Petitioner has secured 396 marks out of full marks of 750 in the year 2005. As such, her percentage of marks comes to nearly 52.8%. Therefore, she deserves to secure more mark of 2.8% than the Opposite Party No.6. But, as per Report of the Selection Committee, though the Opposite Party No.6 has Page 3 of 10 // 4 // been found to have secured 58%, the Petitioner has been correctly awarded with 52.8 percentage of marks. (vi) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite securing higher percentage of marks, the Petitioner has not been selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center. He further submits that after receipt of all the applications, though verification of documents was conducted on 25/01/2014, the list of valid candidates was neither published by the Opposite Party No. 5 on the Notice Board nor circulated through the concerned Gram Panchayat. Nor was any objection also invited with regard to the residence and other qualifications of the valid candidates. For which, no objection from the candidates in general and the Petitioner were submitted. (vii) Thereafter, after an inordinate gap of one year, suddenly the Notice No. 206 dated 24/04/2015 (Annexure- 5) published by the Opposite Party No.5 was reflected on the Office Notice Board, which contained the names of the so called selected candidates of different Anganwadi Centers under Danagadi Block, wherein the name of the Opposite Party No.6 was shown to have been selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center. Page 4 of 10 // 5 // (viii) After getting such information the inhabitants of the Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center and the Petitioner in two separate Complaints on 04/05/2015 have submitted protest letters before the Collector, Jajpur/Opposite Party No.1 challenging the selection procedure adopted while selecting the Anganwadi Workers for Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Center. (ix) It is pertinent to mention here that though the said complaints were forwarded to the Opposite Party No.5 for immediate action, no action was taken on the same.
Legal Reasoning
(x) Being aggrieved by such action of the authorities, the Petitioner on 14.05.2015 preferred W.P.(C) No. 9466 of 2015, wherein the Petitioner was directed to file an Appeal before the A.D.M., Jajpur highlighting her grievances as made in the said Writ Petition within two weeks and the A.D.M., Jajpur was also directed to dispose of the same in accordance with the law but after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of three months thereafter. (xi) Pursuant to the above direction of this Court, the Petitioner on 15/05/2015 preferred the A.W.W Misc. Appeal Case No. 22 of 2015 before the A.D.M., Jajpur. In the said appeal on 24.04.2015 the C.D.P.O, Dangadi filed the para-wise comments stating therein that since the Page 5 of 10 // 6 // residential certificate of the Petitioner has been challenged, the Tahasildar, Dangadi was requested to find out the genuineness of the residential certificate at the instance of the Petitioner. (xii) Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Dangadi vide its letter No.332 dated 18.06.2015 reported that the number and date mentioned in the said certificate refers the income certificate of another person. (xiii) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that for the first time in the aforesaid Anganwadi appeal the question relating to the genuineness of the residential certificate was raised and the Petitioner became aware of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said para-wise comment it is stated that selection of 12 numbers of Anganwadi workers are notified vide letter no.206 dated 21.01.2015. (xiv) During course of hearing of the above appeal the Petitioner filed a petition with a prayer to conduct an enquiry and also for issuing necessary direction for declaring the residence / nativity certificate issued in her favour to be a genuine one. To find out the genuineness of the residence certificate the Petitioner therein had also sought for a direction to call for a report from the Ex- Tahasildar, Dangadi. Page 6 of 10 // 7 // (xv) On 10.02.2016 the learned A.D.M, Jajpur was pleased to send the resident certificate of the Petitioner to the Tahasildar, Dangadi for necessary report. On 18.05.2016 though the report of the Tahasildar, Dangadi relating to the Resident Certificate of the Petitioner was placed before the learned A.D.M, he/she again called for a report in that regard from the concerned R.I. (xvi) Accordingly, on 06.05.2016 though the Tahasildar, Dangadi submitted his report along with the report of the R.I., Gobardhanpur dated 03.04.2015, without considering the same the learned A.D.M, Jajpur on 13.07.2016 passed an order thereby directing the Tahasildar, Dangadi to review the Misc. Certificate issued in favour of the present Petitioner/Gitanjali Barik and submit a report in that regard before the Sub-Collector, Jajpur for conducting further verification on the selection process for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Centre. Further, the learned A.D.M, Jajpur not only directed the Tahasildar, Dangadi to take necessary action against the employee at fault, if he is sure that the alleged residential certificate issued in favour of the Gitanjali Barik is genuine, but also directed the Sub-Collector, Jajpur to supervise the matter for the action to be taken in the matter. Page 7 of 10 // 8 // (xvii) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the letter issued by the Tahasildar, Dangadi also involving the report of the R.I., Gobardhanpur to the A.D.M., Jajpur shows that the Ex-Additional Tahaildar has signed in the residence certificate of the Petitioner, but by mistake a wrong Serial number has been entered in the said certificate by the Misc. Case Clerk or the Peon present there, as there was rush in the Certificate Section. (xviii) It is pertinent to mention here that the R.I., Gobardhanpur has categorically stated that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of Mouza-Nachhipura. Learned counsel for the Petitioner here alleges that despite the above conclusive report submitted by the Tahasildar, Danagadi, the learned A.D.M, Jajpur instead of allowing the appeal at the instance of the Petitioner referred the matter to the Tahasildar, Danagadi and the Sub-Collector, Jajpur for disposal at their end. Therefore, the Petitioner is suffering a lot. (xix) He further submits that taking advantage of the above issue, the Opposite Party No.6 has managed to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the above noted Anganwadi Centre. Learned counsel for the Petitioner here further contends that though the R.I., Gobardhanpur submitted his report on 03.04.2015, the Tahasildar Page 8 of 10 // 9 // submitted his report to the A.D.M, Jajpur after one year i.e. on 06.05.2016. (xx) He further submits that apart from the above move, the Petitioner on 27.09.2016 though submitted representations before the C.D.P.O, Danagi, the Tahasildar, Dangadi and the Sub-Collector, Jajpur for giving her appointment, the same remains unattended to till today. Hence, this Writ Petition. 5. While reiterating the above factual scenario and drawing the attention of this Court to the sufferings of the present Petitioner despite having requisite
Legal Reasoning
qualification, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for allowing this Writ Petition. 6. Challenging the above stand of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State submits that after scrutinizing the marks and the candidature of the aspirants, the authorities have rightly selected the Opposite Party No.6 as an Anganwadi Worker in respect of the above noted Anganwadi Centre. 7. In his opposition, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.6 submits that since the Opposite Party No.6 has secured more marks than the present Petitioner, she deserves to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in Page 9 of 10 // 10 // respect of the above noted Anganwadi Centre. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 8. Considering the submissions of both the parties, looking to the factual scenario of the case and after perusing all the documents especially the impugned order, this Court finds that the case of the Petitioner has not been decided in proper prospective. 9. In such view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the learned A.D.M., Jajpur for disposal of the same afresh. The learned A.D.M., Jajpur is directed to dispose of the matter afresh, but after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and thereafter, pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of this order.
Decision
10. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sumitra Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Apr-2024 18:32:47 Page 10 of 10