The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 6874 of 2012 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Smt. Puspanjali Mallick ...… Petitioner -Versus- Swarna Prava Tripathy & Anr. .... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. R.N.Mohanty, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Party : Mr. S. N. Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for the State. _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 3rd July, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer: “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue a “Rule-Nisi” calling upon the Opposite Party to show cause as to why the orders passed under Annexure-3 by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Puri, shall not be quashed and thereafter as to why the application filed Page 1 of 7 by the petitioner, shall be allowed and if the Opposite Party fails to show cause or shows insufficient cause make the said rule absolute. And Pass such others orders/orders and/or writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. And And for which act of your 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, Satyabadi on 30.12.2009 for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Alikia, Dubeipur Anganwadi Centre. The last date of submission of applications was mentioned as 15.01.2010 and date of scrutiny was 16.01.2010. The petitioner’s case is that she submitted her application before the last date. It so happened that a notice was published by the CDPO, on 18.01.2010, mentioning the last date of receipt of applications as 30.01.2010. By another notice issued on 19.01.2010, it was informed that the notice dated 18.01.2010 was wrongly issued. During the selection process, such notice was challenged by the present Opposite Party No.1 before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 2140 of 2010. By order dated 22.10.2016, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner (present Opposite Party Page 2 of 7 No.1) to file appeal before the Sub-Collector, Puri. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector, Puri by order dated 30.10.2010 took note of the submission made by the CDPO that no fresh application was received pursuant to the notice issued on 18.01.2010 and that selection shall be made on the basis of the original advertisement dated 13.12.2009 in which the last date of receipt of application is mentioned as 15.01.2010. The Sub-Collector therefore, disposed of the appeal by directing that the case of the present Opposite Party No.1 shall be considered at the time of selection. During the selection process however, the present petitioner was found suitable and her name was recommended for engagement as Anganwadi worker. Challenging such selection of the petitioner, the present Opposite Party No.1 filed appeal, being Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 6 of 2011 before the Additional District Magistrate, Puri. After hearing the parties and ongoing through the records, the ADM held that the petitioner had not applied within the last date of receipt of application, as per the advertisement issued on Page 3 of 7 30.12.2009 and accordingly held her selection as illegal. The selection was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer as mentioned above. 3. In the Counter affidavit filed by the CDPO, a stand has been taken that the petitioner had not applied before 15.01.2010 whereas the Opposite Party No.1 had applied within the due date. On such basis, the impugned order was sought to be justified. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by Opposite Party No.1 stating that she had applied within the due date but the petitioner had not. The petitioner’s application was received pursuant to the notice dated 18.01.2010 which was subsequently held to have been wrongly issued. 5. Heard Mr. R.N.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. K.C.Rajguru Mohapatra appearing for the private Opposite Party No.1. 6. The facts of the case as narrated are not disputed. As it appears, after issuance of the advertisement on Page 4 of 7 30.12.2009 fixing the last date of receipt of applications as 15.01.2010, the CDPO, Satyabadi issued another notice on 18.01.2010 extending the last date of receipt of applications to 30.01.2010. On the next date, i.e. 19.01.2010, another notice was issued stating that the notice issued on the previous date, i.e. 18.01.2010, was incorrect and that no application shall be received on the strength of the notice dated 18.01.2010. Issuance of the second notice appears to have led to considerable confusion among all concerned. Certain documents were produced before the ADM during hearing of the appeal on the basis of which it was held that only 7 persons had applied before the due date, i.e. 15.01.2010. This Court has perused the original file and the Registers maintained in the office of the CDPO, Satyabadi relating to selection of Anganwadi Worker in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.12.2009. These records have been produced by Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned State counsel. From the documents available in the original file, this Court finds that the names of 8 applicants including the petitioner Page 5 of 7 and Opposite Party No.1 have been mentioned. There are also documents to show that all these applications were received prior to 15.01.2010. Perusal of the Register maintained by the CDPO also shows receipt of eight applications including that of the petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 before 15.01.2010. The original resolution passed on 07.09.2010 also shows that 8 applications were received. Thus, there is prima facie evidence of receipt of 8 applications before the due date i.e. 15.01.2010. Such being the case, the finding of the ADM becomes vulnerable. It is evident that while hearing the appeal the ADM has presumably not gone through the original file maintained by the CDPO, Satyabadi containing the details of receipt of applications by the candidates as also the original acknowledgements showing the same. This Court is of the view that these are vital pieces of evidence that can have a material bearing on the final outcome of the appeal. Of course, this Court would hasten to add that it has not expressed any opinion either way on merits of the case. It would be Page 6 of 7 proper for the ADM, being the appellate authority to take into consideration the original documents available in the file before taking a final decision in the matter. 7. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the ADM is set aside. The matter is remitted to the ADM for hearing of the appeal afresh. While hearing the appeal, the ADM shall call for the original file and the Registers and such other documents/records that may be necessary for the purpose. It shall also be open to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. The ADM shall grant opportunity of hearing to all concerned and pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by any of the parties. Till such time, status quo as on date with regard to the engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Alikia, Dubeipur shall be maintained. Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 10-Jul-2024 11:41:50 ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 7 of 7