The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 24649 of 2017 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Sujata Sahoo ...… Petitioner --------------- -Versus- State of Odisha and Others _____________________________________________ .... Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M. K.Khuntia, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for the State. Mr. S.Mohapatra, Advocate for Opp. Party No. 4 _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 9th May, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer; “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs; i) To quash the order dated 14.11.2017 under Annexure-4 in so far as directing the CDPO, Banki to invite fresh application for the post of Page 1 of 7 ii) iii) of as Jagannathpur-3 Anganwadi Worker Anganwadi Centre. To direct the Opposite Parties to engage the petitioner of Jagannathpur-3 Anganwadi Centre. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Anganwadi worker 2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Banki on 17.10.2016 for selection and engagement of Anganwadi workers of different Anganwadi centres including Jagannathpur-III. The petitioner was one of the applicants. Though she claims to have secured the highest marks, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi centre in question. The
Legal Reasoning
petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidature by filling appeal before the ADM, Cuttack in Anganwadi Appeal No. 2 of 2017. After considering the rival contentions and the materials placed on record, the appellate authority allowed the appeal by holding that the person selected (Opp. Party No.4) had produced a forged residential certificate and was therefore not eligible. Despite holding so, the appellate authority Page 2 of 7 directed cancellation of the entire selection process and invited fresh applications. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Opposite Parties, inter alia, stating that though the opposite party No.4 was found to have submitted a forged residential certificate and was therefore, held to be ineligible, fact remains that the petitioner herself does not belong to the service area of the centre in question. As such, the appellate authority rightly directed cancellation of the entire selection process. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder basically taking the stand that as per the guidelines dated 02.05.2007, a person from the same village can also be considered for engagement as Anganwadi Worker.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. M.K.Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State. 6. At the outset, it is stated at the bar that the Opposite Party No.4 has not independently challenged the order Page 3 of 7 passed by the appellate authority directing her disengagement. Mr. Khuntia refers to the advertisement wherein, one of the eligibility conditions provided is that the candidate must be a resident of the revenue village/hamlet in which the Anganwadi centre is located. The petitioner is undisputedly a resident of Jagannathpur revenue village/hamlet in which the Anganwadi centre is located. Therefore, she is eligible for engagement as Anganwadi worker. Mr. Khuntia further refers to Clause-1 of the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 to make the same argument. Referring to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Mr. Khunita would submit that out of 4 candidates, only the petitioner was available for consideration as the selection of the Opposite Party No.4 was held to be illegal while the remaining two candidates remained absent. According to Mr. Khuntia, instead of cancelling the entire selection process, the petitioner could have been directed to be engaged. 7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA submits that the appellate authority having noticed several irregularities Page 4 of 7 committed in the selection process, rightly directed cancellation of the entire selection process. Further, the petitioner is admittedly not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. 8. It would be apposite to first refer to clause 1 of revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 which is reproduced below. “Applications for selection of Volunteers to work as Anganwadi Workers will be for each village/Anganwadi Center area from women residing in the said village/Anganwadi Center area.” invited Clause-1 of the advertisement is in consonance with the above guidelines. It is therefore, clear that ordinarily any person residing in the same village can also be considered but preference is to be given to persons residing within the service area of the Anganwadi centre in question. 9. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not disputed that the petitioner belongs to Jagannathpur village but does not reside within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. Out of the 4 candidates, the Opp. Party No.4 Priyambada Dash was selected but in appeal preferred by the petitioner, her selection was held to be bad in law as she had submitted a forged residential Page 5 of 7 certificate. The other two candidates namely, Rebati Sahoo and Sujata Sahoo (wife of Pratap Kumar Sahoo) remained absent as stated in the counter affidavit. This leaves the petitioner as the only candidate available for selection. Perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority reveals that mistakes were apparently found to have been committed during scrutiny, but what those mistakes are, have not been specified. The fact that a wrong person was selected cannot be the fault of the petitioner. This is therefore, a case where one candidate was available who satisfied the eligibility condition as per the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 as well as the advertisement. Therefore, cancelling the entire selection process does not appear to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order deserves interference only to such
Decision
extent. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed only to the extent of the direction to cancel the entire selection procedure and to invite fresh applications. This Court, having found the Page 6 of 7 petitioner otherwise eligible, directs the Opposite Party authorities to issue order of engagement in her favour as early as possible, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 16-May-2025 14:31:05 Page 7 of 7