The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 10402 of 2011 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Anita Parida ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... _____________________________________________ Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M.K.Mohanty, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA G.N.Rath, Advocate (O.P no.8) _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 15th July, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner calls in question the correctness of order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the ADM, Jagatsinghpur in AWW Appeal Case No. 21/2010. Facts: 2. An advertisement was published on 21.11.2009 by the CDPO, Tirtol inviting applications for filling up of 17 posts of additional Anganwadi Workers in respect of 17 Page 1 of 15 additional Anganwadi Centres. The petitioner and the present Opposite Party No.8 were among the applicants. After completion of the selection process, a notification was issued by the CDPO on 09.12.2009 publishing the names of six candidates and inviting objections. As per the guidelines, marks secured in the matriculation examination were to be the basis for preparing the merit list along with provision for additional percentages for different categories. The petitioner secured 59.46% marks in matriculation and having +2 qualification, she was awarded 5% extra marks as such, the total marks was 64.46%. The Opposite Party No.8 secured 55.57% marks in the matriculation examination and was awarded 5% marks for higher qualification, bringing her total marks to 60.57% marks. However, in order to be selected, she in connivance of the CDPO, filed a forged and manufactured physical handicapped certificate bearing No.46 dated 16.09.2007, allegedly issued by the Orthopedic Specialist, DHH, Jagatsinghpur and countersigned by the CDMO, Jagatsinghpur. As such, she was given five Page 2 of 15 additional percentage of marks. Thereby, she was held to be the most suitable candidate and was selected. Appointment order was issued in her favour by the CDPO, on 19.01.2010. The petitioner having come to learn about the forged physical handicapped certificate sought information about the same from the CDPO, under the RTI Act on 06.02.2010. The application and relevant documents submitted by Opposite Party No.8 were provided whereby it was revealed that she had submitted application on 07.12.2009 without stating that she was physically handicapped. The application was subsequently manipulated and the PH certificate No. 46 dated 16.09.2007 was appended as at the time of verification of documents in presence of the petitioners, said certificate was not available with the application of Opposite Party No.8. The petitioner, being a co-villager is aware that Opposite Party No.8 is not a physically handicapped lady and has no disability of her left hand. As such, her father sought information under the RTI Act from the office of the CDMO, Jagatsinghpur as to if the Page 3 of 15 certificate No. 46 dated 16.09.2007 had been issued in favour of the Opposite Party No.8 or not. The ADMO vide letter dated 24.02.2010 informed that after due verification of the relevant register of the DHH, Jagatsinghpur, it was found that no medical Board had been constituted on 16.09.2007 for the same was actually conducted on 17.09.2007 and the Opposite Party No. 8 had never appeared before the medical board nor the certificate had been issued to her. The petitioner
Legal Reasoning
thereafter approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 5140 of 2010 but by order dated 05.05.2010, this Court directed the petitioner to file appeal before the ADM, Jagatsinghpur. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Anganwadi Appeal No.21/2010 before the ADM. By order dated 28.10.2010, the ADM allowed the appeal by holding that the physical handicapped certificate issued in favour of Opposite Party No.8 is not in consonance with the register produced by the CDPO, Jagatsinghpur. Opposite Party No. 8 challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 15330 of 2010. By order dated Page 4 of 15 16.09.2010, this Court directed the ADM, to rehear the appeal after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties and by conducting necessary inquiry regarding genuineness of the certificate of Opposite Party No.8. The appeal was heard afresh. At the time of hearing, Opposite Party No.8 submitted copy of letter dated 15.09.2010 issued from the office of CDMO, Jagatsinghpur to the District Social Welfare Officer, Jagatsinghpur to the effect that the PH certificates of the concerned candidates issued by the District Disability Medical Board was verified from the year wise register whereby it was found that certificate No. 46 dated 16.09.2007 with Medical Board Registration No. 3846 was issued in favour of Opposite Party No.8. On such basis, the ADM held that certificate in question is genuine and valid being confirmed by the CDMO, who is the competent authority. As such the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties and they preferred to make oral submissions. Page 5 of 15 4. Submissions: Heard Mr. M.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr. G.N.Rath, learned counsel appearing for private Opposite Party No.8. 5. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the certificate bearing No. 46 dated 16.09.2007 was categorically stated to have not been issued by the office of the CDMO as per information obtained by the father of the petitioner under the RTI Act. The certificate bears registration No. 8846 but as per the letter of the CDMO addressed to the DSWO, the same is mentioned as 3846. This discrepancy has never been explained satisfactorily. That apart, when it was informed to the petitioner’s father that no medical board had been conducted on 16.09.2007, the question of the Opposite Party No.8 being examined on that date does not arise. Mr. Mohanty further argues that it is otherwise borne out from the materials on record that one of the doctors purportedly signing on the certificate had retired much prior to the date of issuance of the Page 6 of 15 certificate. Even otherwise, the matter has been investigated on the basis of FIR lodged against the Opposite Party No.8 by the Crime Branch and chargesheet has already been submitted clearly indicating that the certificate was forged. 6. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA would submit that though information was supplied to the petitioner’s father that no Medical Board was held on 16.09.2007 and that the Opposite Party No.8 had not appeared for examination on that date fact remains that the CDMO subsequently, on verification of the year-wise register found that certificate No.46 dated 16.09.2007 was issued in favour of the Opposite Party No. 8 with registration no of the medical board register being 3846. Since the subsequent communication by the CDMO itself appears to be more reliable, it was considered prudent to place reliance on it rather than the earlier information submitted by the CDMO under the RTI Act. Mr. Pattnaik however, fairly submits that in the meantime, a criminal case has been instituted against the Opposite Party No.8 Page 7 of 15 and the same being investigated by the Crime Branch, chargesheet has been submitted against her on the premise that the PH certificate utilized by her for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker was forged and fabricated. 7. Mr. G.M. Rath would argue that this Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction would be slow to enter into the factual controversy as to if the certificate in question was genuine or not. The quasi-judicial authority, in the present case the ADM, having rendered the finding based on materials on record, this Court may not examine its correctness on factual basis. Mr. Rath further submits that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any perversity of finding or irregularity of procedure adopted by the ADM so as to justify interference by this Court. Mr. Rath would also argue that only because the disability certificate bears the No. 46 and is dated 16.09.2007 does not ipso facto prove that it is 8846 and not 3846, the same ipso facto does not prove that it was forged because the responsibility of mentioning all the relevant particulars in the certificate lies with the person Page 8 of 15 issuing it and the Opposite Party No.8 cannot be blamed for it. The ADM has rightly relied upon the photocopy of the physical handicapped register since it was authenticated by CDMO, who is the competent authority. The date of issue of the certificate cannot be treated as the date of examination of the person concerned. Mr. Rath further argues that in the absence of specific query raised by the petitioner’s father under the RTI Act, no reliance can be placed on the information submitted under the said Act, more so when the CDMO himself subsequently certified authenticity of the certificate. As regards the criminal case against the Opposite Party No.8, Mr. Rath would argue that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot imply that the allegation against her is proved or that she is guilty. In support of his contentions, Mr. Rath has relied upon the following judgments: i) T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr. (1954) 1 SCC 905 ii)Abhimanyu Malick v. State of Odisha MANU/OR/0389/2023 Page 9 of 15 iii) State of Odisha & Ors. v. Arati Mohapatra (2021) 19 SCC 396 8. Analysis and findings: From the above narration, it is evident that the basic facts of the case are not disputed inasmuch as the Opposite Party No.8 was held to have secured more marks than the petitioner mainly because of additional 5% of marks being granted to her for being a physically disabled candidate. But for the grant of such additional marks, the Opposite Party No.8 would have secured less marks than the petitioner. Keeping the above in perspective, this Court, being conscious of the position of law as regards interference of the writ Court with orders passed by the quasi-judicial authority, confines itself only to examine as to if the finding of the ADM that PH certificate produced by the Opposite Party No.8 was genuine is justified being based on materials on record. As already stated, according to the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.8 has no physical disability and had also not applied as one. Whether the certificate in question was appended subsequently or not is a question Page 10 of 15 which this Court would not like to enter into at this stage. In so far as the certificate is concerned, the petitioner’s father sought information under the RTI Act to the effect that no Medical Board was held on 16.09.2007 and that Opposite Party No.8 had not appeared for examination on that date. Further, no disability certificate was issued in her favour. 9. Considering the above material, the ADM, in his order dated 28.08.2010, particularly, noting the discrepancy in respect of registration number on the certificate and the date of issue, held that the certificate is to be ignored. The appeal was thus, allowed. On remand however, the ADM considered the letter dated 15.09.2010 issued from the Office of the CDMO to DSWO certifying the genuineness of the certificate. There was thus two mutually contradictory information before the ADM. The ADM thought it proper to accept the subsequent communication on the ground that the same was confirmed by the CDMO as genuine without citing any reason as to why the information obtained under the RTI Page 11 of 15 Act, being a statutory process was ignored when the same was also issued by the Office of the CDMO. This omission to state the reason makes the order vulnerable. This is all the most significant in view of the undisputed fact that a criminal case has been instituted against the Opposite Party No.8 and chargesheet has been submitted. Though a pending criminal case may not have much bearing on administrative actions yet, one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that submission of a chargesheet by the Crime Branch at least raises a prima facie case, if nothing else. Another important aspect is the fact that one of the doctors purportedly signing the PH certificate, namely, Dr. Gopinath Biswal had retired long ago i.e. 30.09.2006. While this Court agrees with the proposition advanced that mere institution of a criminal case cannot automatically prove the guilt of the person concerned yet, the undisputed fact that Dr. Biswal had retired long before the certificate was signed purportedly by him with others, is too significant a fact to be lost sight of. In the quest for arriving at the truth, the Court Page 12 of 15 cannot obviously be blind to such tell-tale discrepancy in the certificate. Viewed in the above context, the information supplied to the petitioner’s father under the RTI Act would certainly assume more weightage than the subsequent information. It is not known whether the fact of retirement of Dr. Biswal was placed before the ADM or not but regardless of the same, such fact being brought to the notice of this Court in the present proceeding, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the same. Tested in the above context, the reasoning of the ADM cannot be accepted. 10. As regards the judgments cited by Mr. Rath, there is no quarrel with the propositions laid therein. For instance, as already stated, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction is fully conscious of the limitations in so far as entering into factual controversy is concerned. What has been found by this Court as narrated above are glaring facts from the record itself and not by making any roving or fishing inquiry. As regards the principle that mere involvement in criminal case does not ipso facto Page 13 of 15 prove the person’s guilt, this Court makes it clear that it has not offered any comments with regard to the criminal case, save and except to refer to certain facts mentioned in the chargesheet that are otherwise available on record. As to the reliability of information obtained under the RTI Act, in the case of Arati Mohapatra (supra) relied on by Mr. Rath, the Supreme Court disapproved the reliance placed by the High Court on information obtained under the RTI Act because the same being subject matter of litigation had been set aside. Said case can be easily distinguished from the case at hand. 11. Conclusion: From a conceptus of the analysis of facts, law, contentions raised and the analysis made, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and that it warrants interference. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The concerned authorities are directed to take steps for selecting and engaging the most suitable candidate from amongst the eligible candidates pursuant Page 14 of 15 to the original advertisement after disengaging Opposite Party No.8. Deepak ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 16-Jul-2025 11:45:59 Page 15 of 15