Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Rangalata Swain .… v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 7847 of 2018 Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Rangalata Swain .…… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha and others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : M/s. Ashok Kumar Sahoo, A. Pattanaik & B.S. Das, Advocates.
Legal Reasoning
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 10th July, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Heard Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government for the State. None appears on repeated calls for opposite party No.10. Yesterday also there was no appearance from Page 1 of 7 the opposite party No.10 despite repeated calls. As such, the writ application is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer. “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances more fully narrated hereinabove that the petitioner most humbly prays your Lordship to be kind enough and graciously be pleased to admit the writ, issue notice to opp.parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to issue a rule NISI, calling upon the opp. Party to show cause as to why the order dt.8.2.2018 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Kendrapara under annexure-6 shall not be quashed and consequently the order of engagement of Rina Pradhan (OP.10) shall not be quashed. If the OPP Party fails to show cause or shown insufficient cause the rule be made absolute. And further be pleased the order of to hold engagement to the said center in question is bad in law. And for this act the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the CDPO, Mahakalapada for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Gojabandha Anganwadi Centre on 09.08.2016, the petitioner submitted her application. The opposite party No.10 was also an applicant. In the selection committee meeting held on 24.09.2016, the name of opposite party No.10 found place at serial No.2. However, she was selected for engagement. Shortly thereafter the petitioner came to know from the Page 2 of 7 reliable source that the opposite party No.10 had submitted forged and manufactured educational certificate showing her to have passed Class-VII from Netaji UP School, Kumarpada. On such basis, she took admission in Maa Gajrabudhi Sanskrit Vidyapitha, Kumarpada, from where she passed her matriculation examination. However, as per information obtained by the petitioner from the Headmaster of Netaji UP School under the Right to Information Act it came to light that the opposite party No.10 was never a student of that institution. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred appeal before the ADM, Kendrapara being Anganwadi Appeal No. 5 of 2017 specifically pleading as under in paragraph-2. “2 That, the respondent No.8 is the daughter of Madhusudan Pradhan of village- Dadhipur PS- Mahakalpada, District- Kendrapada, the respondent No.8 namely Rina Pradhan was never admitted nor she was reading as student at Netaji JP School, Kumarpada, Mahakalpada, Kendrapada by creating a false School leaving Certificate showing herself that she has passed class-7th from Netaji UP School Kumarpada, was admitted at Bajrabudhi Sanskrit Bidya pitha, Kumarpada in 8th class on 21.7.1995 and passed Madhyama examination in the year 1998, her Sl.No.8 mentioned in admission Register No.09/95 and it has been shown in admission Register of Maa Bajrabudhi Sanskrit Bidya Pitha, Kumarpada that Rina Pradhan was admitted in the Page 3 of 7 said school by producing S.L.C of Netaji M.E School(now U.P school) Kumarpada.” 4. The ADM however, in his order dated 08.02.2018 referred to the documents filed by the parties and found that the present opposite party No.10 had secured the highest marks and the petitioner is the second highest marks. Further, the CDPO, Mahakalapada obtained copies of H.S.C and +2 Certificates from the concerned organizations and produced before the ADM. On such basis, the appeal of the petitioner was found to be without merit and was dismissed. 5. Mr. B.S. Das would submit that if the very basis is fraudulent, the entire edifice built upon it cannot be sustained. He submits that when the petitioner produced a forged certificate showing to have passed Class-VII, the same implies that all subsequent academic qualifications that she acquired would have no force of law as an act of fraud cannot be validated subsequently. Mr. Das would further argue that despite such plea being specifically stated, the ADM did not consider the same and was Page 4 of 7 apparently swayed away by the subsequent educational certificates. 6. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned State Counsel would fairly submit that all the grounds raised by the petitioner in her appeal ought to have been considered by the ADM in accordance with law. 7. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material on record, this court finds that the impugned order does not deal with the grounds taken by the petitioner under paragraph-2 of her appeal memo. Non-consideration of a ground raised in the memo is ordinarily not fatal to the case, but where such ground goes to the root of the matter, the authority ought to have considered the same and applied its mind. Similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court in Jayantkumar vs. General Manager (Stores and Purchase Deptt.) & Competent Authority & Ors1 to the following effect: “3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the orders of the first and the second appellate authorities, it appears that the 1 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1980 Page 5 of 7 the second appellate authority. authorities have not recorded any reasons while dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner. We have perused the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before the authorities. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner have been considered either by the first appellate authority or by It was necessary for the appellate authorities to have considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the departmental appeals and the authorities ought to have recorded at least some reasons while the appeals. Since no reasons are deciding recorded while dismissing the impugned orders passed by the appellate authorities are liable to be quashed and set aside.” the appeals, 8. In the case of Raghunath Krishna Gole and Another v Sardar Munaf Patel2, the Bombay High Court also noted that the Maharastra Revenue Tribunal’s (MRT) failure to consider vital aspects caused prejudice to the petitioners: on for the determination the aforesaid “25. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that, there was failure on the part of the MRT to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it two to by not adverting aspects/grounds, and not framing the specific points said aspects/grounds. In case the order of the MRT is allowed to operate, it would cause prejudice to the case of the petitioners and also in absence of framing aforesaid aspect/grounds, even the respondent had no opportunity to contest the said aspects/grounds. Therefore it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the MRT dated 8-2-2016, and remand the matter back to the MRT for a de novo consideration of the said revision application” specific points on of 2 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 899 Page 6 of 7 Therefore, the appellate authority’s inability to consider the grounds raised in the memo of appeal not only prejudices the petitioners but also restricts the ability of this court to test the correctness of the impugned order in a certiorari proceeding, more so, when the grounds raised could affect the ultimate outcome in the case. 9. Under such circumstances, the appeal cannot be said to have been properly decided as the ground raised by the petitioner can have material bearing on the final outcome. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is
Decision
disposed of remitting the matter to the ADM, Kendrapara to rehear the Anganwadi Appeal No.5 of 2017 considering all the grounds raised by the parties after giving them opportunity of hearing. The ADM shall do well to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 10th July, 2023/ 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: 19-Jul-2024 16:25:01 Page 7 of 7