The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 11031 OF 2017 In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------------- Lopamudra Pradhan ….. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ….. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case through virtual mode:- _______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. P.K. Mohapatra & S.C. Sahoo, Advocates For Opp. Parties : M/s. A.R. Dash, Addl. Government Advocate [OP Nos.1 to 6] M/s. A. Tripathy & B. Sahoo, Advocates [OP No.7] _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 26th September, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- Page 1 of 8 the “Under and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition; aforesaid facts i) direct the opp.parties to issue engagement order in favour of thepetitioner as Anganwadi worker in Bhapur-I Anganwadi Centre and thereby quashing the order dated 19.1.2017 as at Annexure-7 and the order dated 31.8.2016 illegal and not it vide Anneuro-5 as consonance with the Govt. guidelines and advertisement; is ii) pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as world deem fit and proper;” 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.01.2016 issued by the CDPO (Child Development Project Officer), Bhapur for engagement of Anganwadi Workers of four Anganwadi Centres, the petitioner and opposite party no.7 submitted their candidatures for Bhapur-I Anganwadi Centre. The advertisement specified the service area of the Anganwadi Centre as Ward Nos.14 and 15. In the process of selection, opposite party no.7 was found to have secured the highest marks, i.e., 68.33%. The petitioner secured 65.75% marks. As such, opposite party no.7 was selected for engagement and was subsequently engaged. It is stated that she is also Page 2 of 8 continuing as Anganwadi Worker of the Centre in question.
Facts
The petitioner challenged the selection of opposite party no.7 by filing an appeal being AW Appeal No.3 of 2016 before the ADM (Additional District Magistrate), Nayagarh contending mainly that opposite party no.7 is not a resident of the service area of the Centre in question. By order dated 19.01.2017, the ADM held that the resident certificate issued in favour of opposite party no.7 indicating that she belongs to Bhapur village, has not been challenged as incorrect before the appropriate Court of law and therefore, is to be treated as valid. Holding thus, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application. 3. The State authorities have filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that opposite party no.7, being a resident of Ward No.15 and having secured highest marks, was selected by the selection committee. Further, on verification of the Electoral Roll of Bhapur GP (Gram Page 3 of 8 Panchayat), it was found that one Bijaya Kumar Nayak, husband of opposite party no.7, belongs to Ward No.15 of Bhapur GP and that she herself is a resident of Bhapur village, as evident from the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Bhapur. The petitioner’s claim for selection was thus repelled. 4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder enclosing copies of written information received by her from the office of the GP as well as ICDS, Bhapur under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “RTI Act”). As per the said information, opposite party no.7 was a resident of Ward No.8 at the relevant time. 5. The opposite party no.7 has also filed a counter refuting the averments made in the writ application by stating that she has been proved to be a resident of Ward No.15, which is within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. Further, admittedly, she secured the highest marks and therefore, she was rightly selected. Page 4 of 8 6.
Legal Reasoning
the RTI Act, it prima facie, appears that opposite party no.7 is a resident of Ward No.8 and was also a resident of the said Ward at the relevant time. As against the above, the petitioner claims to be a resident of Ward No.14. There is no dispute that Bhapur-I Anganwadi Centre is comprised of two Wards, i.e., 14 and 15. It is further noticed that both petitioner and opposite party no.7 belong to village Bhapur. Reference to the revised guidelines issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 for selection of Anganwadi Workers reveals that applications for selection of Anganwadi Workers are to be invited from women residing in the said village/Anganwadi Centre area. This is also reflected in the advertisement dated 19.01.2016. This implies that if two candidates belong to the same village, Page 6 of 8 then the candidate residing within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question would be preferred. In the instant case, the ADM has considered only the resident certificate of opposite party no.7 showing her a resident of the village, but has not further considered whether she is a resident of the service area of the Centre in question or not. From what has been narrated herein before, it is imperative that an inquiry is to be conducted in order to consider the grievance of the petitioner in proper perspective. This Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was not properly adjudicated by the ADM, thereby warranting interference by this Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the ADM, Nayagarh in AW Appeal No. 3 of 2016 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the ADM, Nayagarh for fresh hearing of the appeal after granting opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties and on consideration of the materials relating to residence of Page 7 of 8 the petitioner as well as opposite party no.7 to be produced by the parties in course of hearing. The ADM shall pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by either of the parties. ..……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 26th September, 2024/‘G.D.Samal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ohc, cuttack Date: 01-Oct-2024 17:06:35 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
Heard Shri P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties and Shri Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7. 7. Referring to the information obtained under the RTI Act by the petitioner, Shri Mohapatra would contend that merely because opposite party no.7 is a resident of village Bhapur, it does not make her eligible to be selected as Anganwadi Worker of the Centre in question, since she is not a resident of the service area of the said Centre. 8. Shri A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that since the ADM found opposite party no.7 to have secured highest marks being a resident of the village, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 9. Shri Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7 makes similar submissions as the State Counsel and adds that the petitioner not having been selected because of securing less marks than opposite Page 5 of 8 party no.7, cannot question the selection of opposite party no.7. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials placed on record, including the written information obtained by the petitioner under