Patna High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WA No.852 of 2025 In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of the Odisha High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Odisha, 1948 *** Laxmipriya Sethy Aged about 28 years Daughter of Pramod Sethi AT/P.O.: Prathamakhandi P.S.: Kuakhia, District: Jajpur. -VERSUS- … Appellant 1. State of Odisha Represented through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government Women & Child Development Department Lokseva Bhawan P.O./P.S./Munsif: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 2. Additional District Magistrate, Jajpur AT/P.O./P.S./Munsif/District: Jajpur. 3. Sub-Collector, Jajpur, AT/P.O./District: Jajpur. WA No.852 of 2025 Page 1 of 29 4. Child Development Project Officer, Rasulpur AT/P.O.: Rasulpur, P.S.: Kuakhia District: Jajpur. 5. Puspanjali Sahoo Aged about 28 years Wife of Surendra Nath Sahoo AT/P.O.: Prathamakhandi, P.S.: Kuakhia District: Jajpur. … Counsel appeared for the parties: Respondents. For the Appellant : M/s. Manoranjan Mishra, Sidhartha Swain and Surendra Kumar Sahoo, Advocates For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, : Government Advocate For the Respondent No.5 M/s. Durgesh Narayan Rath, : Amit Kumar Saa, Sourav Das and Pranab Mishra, Advocates P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 26.06.2025 MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— J UDGMENT WA No.852 of 2025 Page 2 of 29 This intra-Court appeal is directed against the Judgement dated 25.04.2025 rendered by a learned Single Bench in an application, bearing W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s):
Legal Reasoning
“It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit the writ appeal issue notices to the respondents and after hearing the parties the impunged Judgement dated 25.04.2025 vide Annexure-5 passed by the Hon‟ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 40116 of 2023 be set aside and the appeal be allowed and the appointment Order dated 07.12.2023 issued in favour of the appellant vide Annexure-8 be confirmed and any other order as deem fit be passed; And for this act of kindness the appellant as in duty bound shall ever pray,” Facts: 2. As it emanates from the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed at the instance of the respondent No.5 that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 17.05.2017 by the Child Development Project Officer, Rasulpur in the district of Jajpur (“CDPO”, for short) for selection of Anganwadi Workers of several centres, she submitted application for the post of Anganwadi worker with respect to Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat. In the selection process, one Aparna Samal WA No.852 of 2025 Page 3 of 29 was selected and engaged. The selection of Aparna Samal was challenged by the respondent No.5 in AWW Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02 of 2019 before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre, considering the contentions raised and the materials on record, the appellate authority allowed the appeal by cancelling the process of selection with direction to select Anganwadi Worker out of the merit list or to make selection afresh, if no candidate is available. Said order was challenged by Aparna Samal before this Court in WP(C) No.6723 of 2020. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 10.10.20231, basing on the 1 Relevant portion of Order dated 10.10.2023 in the case of Aparna Samal Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.6723 of 2020, reads thus: “7. The relevant portion of the Order dated 22.01.2020 passed in A.W.W. Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02/2019 is extracted herein below: „In view of the facts discussed above, this court is inclined to hold that the selection and engagement of Aparna Samal as Anganwadi worker in Prathamakhandi Anganwadi Centre-6 is wrong and against the guideline of selection of Anganwadi Worker. So the appeal is allowed and the selection order/engagement order of Aparna Samal as Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi G.P. is set-aside. The C.D.P.O, Rasulpur is directed to disengage Aparna Samal forthwith and take necessary steps to select Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre No.6 out of merit list and if no candidate is available in the merit list then make selection afresh as per provision of guideline of W&C.D Department Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.‟ *** 10. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned Order dated 22.01.2020 passed in A.W.W. Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02/2019. In such view of the matter, this Court directs that the person, who has secured highest mark in the merit list of the same selection after disengagement of the Petitioner, be given appointment as an Anganwadi worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, if she is otherwise eligible. The order of the A.D.M, Jajpur dated 22.01.2020 in A.W.W. Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02/2019 is modified to the above extent.” WA No.852 of 2025 Page 4 of 29 report submitted by the Tahasildar, observed that Aparna Samal not being a resident of the service area, the order of the appellate authority was not liable to be interfered with. It was, therefore, directed that the person securing highest marks be given appointment/ engagement. Said order was further tested in an intra- Court appeal being W.A. No.2655 of 2023 2 filed by Aparna Samal. But the order came to be confirmed vide Order dated 24.11.2023. While the matter stood thus and the respondent No.5 was expecting to be issued with 2 Relevant portion of Order dated 24.11.2023 in the case of Aparna Samal Vrs. State of Odisha, W.A. No.2655 of 2023, reads thus: “8. In view of the above, there is no iota of doubt that if the candidate belonged to the anganwadi centre area is available then in that case she should be given engagement to that anganwadi centre. As such, the Prathamakhandi anganwadi centre No.6 falls in ward No.12, but the appellant is not residing there. Furthermore, inquiry was conducted for the said purpose by the Addl. Tahasildar, Rasulpur and relying upon such inquiry report the learned Single Judge has come to a definite conclusion that the appellant is not residing within the aforesaid anganwadi centre area, which is coming under ward No.12. Apart from the same, the appellant herself submitted that as per micro division of the ward, the appellant may not belong to ward No.12, but she does belong to that village and, as such, the appellant sought quashing of the Order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the ADM, Jajpur in AWW Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02/2019 in the writ petition. If it is the admitted case of the appellant that she may not belong to ward No.12, but she does belong to that village, ipso facto the same cannot be considered for grant of benefit, as has been claimed by the appellant. Rather, the prime question is, if candidate for the Prathamakhandi anganwadi centre area is available, in that case, the benefit should have been given to such candidate instead of the candidate belonging to the village. Since respondent No.12 belonged to said aganwadi centre area, which is within ward No.12 and her case has been considered by the authority, the claim of the appellant to get engagement as anganwadi worker in respect of Prathamakhandi Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any error apparent on the Order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the ADM, Jajpur in AWW Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02/2019, which has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 10.10.2023 in W.P.(C) No.6723 of 2020, so as to warrant interference with the same. Consequentially, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.” 9. WA No.852 of 2025 Page 5 of 29 an order of appointment having secured 2nd highest mark, found that the CDPO arbitrarily added 15 marks to the marks secured by appellant, thereby making it 60. Since the appellant had never submitted any +2 certificate nor caste certificate to substantiate her claim, such selection, according to the respondent No.5, is illegal, as, as per the advertisement, no document could be considered after the date of submission of the application. As per the information obtained by the respondent No.5 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the appellant had neither mentioned about the +2 qualification nor disclosed her caste in her application form or submitted any documentary evidence in support thereof. The appellant was, however, engaged vide Order dated 07.12.2023. On such facts, the writ application has been filed with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstance, it is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by directing the opposite party No. 4 to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat within a stipulated period;
Decision
And this Hon‟ble Court may be further pleased to quash the Order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the opposite party No.4 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. WA No.852 of 2025 Page 6 of 29 And this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to pass any further order/order or direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 2.1. Accepting the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the CDPO in course of the writ proceeding that the appellant had “neither mentioned about submission of Caste Certificate in the application form nor submitted any Caste Certificate”, which remained uncontroverted by the appellant as it placed no cogent material in rebuttal of assertion made in the said affidavit, the learned Single Judge interfered with the appointment Order dated 07.12.2023 issued by the CDPO (Annexure-9). Having allowed the writ petition, the authorities were directed to issue appointment order in favour of the respondent No.5. 2.2. Being not satisfied, the writ appeal has been filed by the appellant craving to set aside the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023 beseeching restoration of appointment Order dated 07.12.2023 issued by the CDPO. Hearing: 3. A short point, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in acceding to the prayers made by the Page 7 of 29 WA No.852 of 2025 respondent No.5 and quashing the appointment Order dated 07.12.2023 issued by the CDPO for non- submission of caste certificate along with application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker, is involved. Therefore, on the consent of the counsel for the parties, this matter is disposed of at the stage of “Fresh Admission”/“Order”. 3.1. Heard Sri Manoranjan Mishra, learned Advocate for the appellant, Sri Kailash Chandra Kar, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Durgesh Narayan Rath, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.5. Rival contentions and submissions: 4. Sri Manoranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that though as required under the Advertisement dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure-6) copies of all the necessary documents specified therein were to be enclosed to the application form, none objected to the claim of Scheduled Caste candidature of the appellant set out in such application form pursuant to Notice dated 06.06.2017. It is vehemently argued that 2nd highest marks being secured by the appellant, the approach of the learned Single Judge is erroneous in appreciating the factual details available on record of the Selection Committee. The learned Single Judge ought WA No.852 of 2025 Page 8 of 29 not to have taken into consideration the affidavit of the CDPO filed in course of the writ proceeding. 4.1. It is strenuously submitted that the learned Single Judge should have appreciated that as per advertisement dated 17.05.2017, the last date of submission of the application form was on 03.06.2017 and all the candidates submitted their applications by complying with the terms of the advertisement. After three days therefrom, i.e., on 06.06.2017 a notice was issued by the CDPO inviting objection(s), if any, against any of the candidates with respect to their educational qualification, residential status, caste and ward number. Since no objection was received from any quarter, the learned Single Judge could not create a third case on the basis of belated affidavit sworn to by the CDPO (successor-in-office). 5. Sri Kailash Chandra Kar, learned Government Advocate, opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts pleaded by the respondents herein in connection with the writ petition and considered to be true by the learned Single Judge in absence of any adverse material placed by the appellant to contradict the statement of fact that the application for appointment of Anganwadi Worker did not contain copy of caste certificate as required to be furnished in terms of Advertisement dated 17.05.2017. Therefore, he WA No.852 of 2025 Page 9 of 29 would urge that the learned Single Judge was justified in upturning the appointment Order dated 07.12.2023 issued by the CDPO. 5.1. Error of record, it is argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate, would not give impetus in favour of the appellant who has not put forth with affirmation that copy of such certificate was submitted along with the application form in order to satisfy all essential conditions laid down in the Advertisement dated 17.05.2017. Making his stance clear, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the application submitted by the appellant was accompanied by neither +2 Certificate nor her Caste Certificate; yet . the Selection Committee, considering her higher qualification and her social status, awarded extra marks. 5.2. Sri Durgesh Narayan Rath, learned advocate for the respondent No.5 supported the reasons ascribed in the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge. 5.3. As the appellant could not substantiate her claim by furnishing cogent material to demonstrate that she complied with all essential conditions required to be satisfied while furnishing application form, no infirmity being brought forth on record, it is insisted by the counsels for the respondents that the grounds of appeal WA No.852 of 2025 Page 10 of 29 as laid by the appellant being sans merit, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Analysis and discussions: 6. The following significant undisputed facts relevant for adjudication of issue raised before this Court in the instant intra-Court appeal surface on perusal of impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge vis-(cid:224)- vis scrutiny of materials made available on records: i. Advertisement No.360, dated 17.05.2017 invited applications from eligible women candidates for the post of Anganwadi Worker for selection/nomination in the Additional Anganwadi Centre and the Mini Anganwadi Centre under the control of the Child Development Project, Rasulpur, which specified inter alia following conditions: “Essential eligibility for the post of Anganwadi Worker: 1. 2. Candidate should be permanent resident of the Anganwadi Service Area. Candidate should not be less than 18 years and not more than 42 years of age. 3. Minimum educational qualification of the candidate should be matric pass or above (Candidates in possession of High School Examination Pass Certificate from approved WA No.852 of 2025 Page 11 of 29 4. 5. 6. High School of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha Government or equivalent can apply). as published along with Candidates can submit in model application form this advertisement. Last date for application is 03.06.2017 (on all Government working days to 1.00 p.m.). No between 7.00 a.m. beyond application scheduled date/time. received shall be Candidates are required to submit sealed envelope containing application form enclosing therewith Attested Xerox Copies of necessary testimonials in the Office of undersigned authority. Name of the Candidate, Permanent Address and Mobile Number should be clearly scribed on the envelope. Candidates should remain present along with all the original testimonials for verification in the Child Development Project Office on 05.06.2017. Following necessary testimonials are required to be enclosed along with the application form: 1. Document showing High School Certificate Examination pass (Photocopy) 2. Mark-List showing passing of High School Certificate Examination (Photocopy) 3. Evidence showing any higher qualification (Photocopy) WA No.852 of 2025 Page 12 of 29 4. Evidence showing resident (Photocopy); (should have been issued not more than six months from Tahasildar concerned) permanent 5. Harijan or Adivasi (Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe) candidates. (Photocopy of the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahasildar concerned) 6. Candidate, if widow, Death Certificate (Photocopy of Death Certificate of Husband from Competent Authority) 7. If candidate is destitute/deserted, Destitute/ Deserted Certificate from Competent Authority to be submitted years 8. Having all other eligibility, if any candidate has worked continuously for a minimum period of Anganwadi/Balwadi five Helper/Organiser under the aforesaid Project, photocopy of documents showing engagement in such position and experience should be furnished as 9. Women with physical disability having all other eligibility can also apply. For this purpose, photocopy of certificate issued by concerned to Chief District Medical Officer physical disability should be submitted and photocopy of identity card obtained from the District Welfare Officer, Jajpur should be submitted relating 10. Photocopy of engagement of candidate in Early Childhood Care and Education Centre under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan either worked or WA No.852 of 2025 Page 13 of 29 continuing to work and experience certificate depicting years worked from DPC, SSA, Jajpur is to be submitted 11. Two recent passport photographs with name and address being duly attested by a Gazetted Officer is to be furnished 12. Photocopy of voter list of the concerned village Centre Ward to be submitted N.B.: If necessary documents/certificates are not furnished or application found incomplete or application is received after the scheduled date, the same shall be rejected. form is Conditions 1. Incomplete applications shall be rejected. 2. Applications submitted after scheduled date If any time shall not be received. and application the scheduled date and time, the application shall be rejected. (The undersigned cannot be held responsible for delay in service by post) is received by post after If application submitted is not accompanied true copies of certificates/ with attested testimonials shall be rejected. 3. *** 8. Any complaint with respect to selection/ nomination of Anganwadi Worker shall be considered first by the Additional Collector, Jajpur (First Appellate Authority). WA No.852 of 2025 Page 14 of 29 ***” 6.1. While the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the arguments and threadbare discussion, the following observations are made in the impugned Judgment: “10. As already stated, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the writ application filed earlier by the petitioner, after setting aside the engagement of Aparna Samal, issued direction for engagement of the person securing the next highest mark. The petitioner claims to have secured 58.26 marks and the opposite party No.5, 45 marks. It is not disputed that 5 marks were added for +2 qualification and 10 marks for SC category to the marks of opposite party No.5, thus, taking the total tally to 60. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that extra marks could not have been awarded to opposite party No.5, since she had not submitted the documents in support of the same along with her application. The State Counsel, who produced the original file containing all the applications, fairly submitted that the application submitted by opposite party No.5 was not accompanied by any +2 or caste certificate. In fact, being directed by this Court, the incumbent CDPO has filed an affidavit on 04.02.2025 before this Court wherein the following is stated in paragraph 4: „4. That, record reveals that at the time of for submission of application engagement of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of form WA No.852 of 2025 Page 15 of 29 Gram Prathamakhandi Panchayat, Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter of Pramod Sethi has neither mentioned about submission of Caste Certificate in the application form nor submitted any Caste Certificate. Further, the tabulation register the Selection Committee has reveals that to Laxmipriya Sethi, awarded 10 marks Daughter Pramod Sethi for submission of Caste Certificate. Since this deponent was not working as CDPO, Rasulpur ICDS Page 8 of 11 Project at the time of selection of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, she has no knowledge as to under which circumstances, 10 marks has been awarded to Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter Pramod Sethi in the heading „Caste‟.‟ This is sought to be countered by the learned counsel for opposite party No.5 by submitting that the application form said to have been submitted by opposite party No.5 contains some manipulation. Since she had passed +2 Arts and belongs to the Scheduled Caste by birth, there is no reason as to why she would not fill up those columns in the application form. 11. From what has been narrated before, it is evident that if the affidavit of the incumbent CDPO is to be taken into consideration, it would seal the fate of opposite party No.5, inasmuch as, it proves that she had not submitted at least the caste certificate along with her application form. The advertisement and the guidelines are WA No.852 of 2025 Page 16 of 29 a by reply the guidelines as well as clear that a document not submitted at the time of submitting the application, cannot be taken into consideration subsequently. Such being the case, it is not understood as to how 10 marks could be added to the marks of the the Selection opposite party No.5 Committee. Even assuming that it was on the basis of the certificate produced by her at the time of selection, the same would still be contrary to the provisions of the advertisement. The opposite party No.5 has submitted the aforementioned affidavit filed by the CDPO, but simply by reiterating that some manipulation had been made in the copy of the application enclosed to the writ application as Annexure-8, and that nobody had objected to the list of candidates selection community, the specific stand taken by the CDPO has not been rebutted or controverted. In view of the categorical admission by the State Counsel as well as the affidavit filed by the CDPO, which this Court finds no reason to disbelieve, it is evident that the Selection Committee committed illegality in awarding extra marks to the opposite party No.5. published affidavit the by to 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner.” 6.2. It is apparent from the above factual matrix on consideration of affirmation made by the CDPO by way of affidavit that at the time of submission of application WA No.852 of 2025 Page 17 of 29 form for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter of Pramod Sethi (appellant) has neither mentioned about submission of Caste Certificate along with the application form nor did she furnish any Caste Certificate. 6.3. Conjoint reading of Clauses 4 and 5 of the eligibility criteria and Clause 5 of the instructions specifying copies of documents required to be enclosed with the application form along with N.B. juxtaposed with Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the conditions appended to the Advertisement dated 17.05.2017 implies that in absence of copy of any of the requisite documents so enumerated being attached to the application form by the last date stipulated in said Advertisement, the application form would be rejected. 6.4. The fact of non-supply of relevant document, such as Caste Certificate, on verification of connected record could come to fore and the same is put forth before the learned Single Judge by way of Affidavit dated 04.02.2025 sworn to by the CDPO. Opportunity to counter such factual assertion was afforded to the appellant, and by way of objection-affidavit dated 30.06.2025 filed in connection with the writ petition, the appellant failed to bring on record any cogent material to WA No.852 of 2025 Page 18 of 29 falsify the assertion made by the CDPO in the aforementioned affidavit. 6.5. Mere making statement in the objection that the respondent No.4 (CDPO) has not clarified with reference to the Tabulation Register depicting marks awarded to the respondent No.5 [5 marks for higher qualification (+2 Arts) and 10 marks for Scheduled Caste (SC) category] vis-(cid:224)-vis the appellant along with other applicants and said respondent No.5 had put signature on the Tabulation Register without any objection would not suffice. It is interesting to notice that the appellant has made copy of application form along with all the documents enclosed thereto at the time of its submission part of writ petition vide Annexure-8. Minute scrutiny of said annexure to the writ petition this Court finds copies of other documents such as, Voter List with Voter Card, Aadhaar card, Income Certificate issued by the Revenue Officer, Residential Certificate issued by the Revenue Officer, the High School Certificate Examination with marks secured issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, enclosed to the application form, but said annexure does not demonstrate submission of copy of the Caste Certificate. The counsel for the appellant is also not in a position to show at this stage that such a Caste Certificate was ever furnished along with application form. WA No.852 of 2025 Page 19 of 29 6.6. It is trite that the fulfilment of conditions stipulated in the Advertisement is sacrosanct and cannot be relaxed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vrs. Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 11 SCR 635 made the following observations with respect to scope of relaxation of conditions: “28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any in the terms and conditions of the relaxation advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication power the WA No.852 of 2025 Page 20 of 29 would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No.1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 6.7. In Durgawati Devi Vrs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2305 it has been succinctly maintained that, “5. Admittedly, as on the last date for submission of applications in terms of the advertisement referred to above, the petitioner did not own land as required. The petitioner only had an agreement for sale in her favour. It is well-settled that execution of a sale agreement does not transfer ownership/title. Ownership can only be acquired by a registered deed of conveyance. The petitioner was not eligible as on the last date for submission of applications. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that a deed of conveyance has since been executed and the petitioner is now the owner of the land. However, it is not disputed that as on the relevant date, that is the last WA No.852 of 2025 Page 21 of 29 date for submission of applications, the petitioner was not the owner of the land. 7. The High Court cannot, and rightly did not, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relax the terms and conditions of a tender notice. 8. Such relaxation would be patently discriminatory, for it would then be open for other applicants ineligible on for submission of last date applications to contend that, they could have acquired eligibility subsequently.” the 6.8. In Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited Vrs. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 446, it is laid down as follow: “14. The law is settled that an essential condition of a tender has to be strictly complied with. In Poddar Steel Corpn. Vrs. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273, this Court held as under: „6. *** The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories— those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases.‟ WA No.852 of 2025 Page 22 of 29 15. Similarly in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd Vrs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 this Court held as under: „(i) if there are essential conditions, the same must be adhered to. ***” 6.9. In the case at hand, the Advertisement dated 17.05.2017 clearly stipulated that incomplete applications or applications not accompanied by necessary documents as specified therein would entail rejection. As the copy of application form along with documents enclosed thereto by the applicant-appellant was placed before the learned Single Judge vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition, there is nothing to suggest therein that the appellant had submitted the copy of Caste Certificate by the last date fixed for receipt of application form. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any perversity in recording facts by the learned Single Judge in the Judgment dated 25.04.2025. Scope of writ appeal to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge: 7. Having found thus, the conclusion as arrived at by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from infirmity either factually or legally. This Court takes note of principle laid down in the decision rendered by this Court in State of Odisha & Others Vrs. Shradhanjali Dash, Writ Appeal No.1204 of 2022 vide Order dated WA No.852 of 2025 Page 23 of 29 26.03.2025, wherein the scope of interference in the Judgment of learned Single Judge in an intra-Court appeal has been discussed in the following terms: “In the case of Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Workmen of Narendra & Company, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, it has been observed as follows: „5. *** Be that as it may, in an intra-Court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.‟ In the case of Wander Ltd. Vrs. Antox India (P) Ltd., reported in 1990 Supp. SCC 727, following observation has been made: „14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court interfere with the exercise of will not discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a WA No.852 of 2025 Page 24 of 29 conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The Appellate Court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the Appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court‟s exercise of discretion.‟ In the case of Anindita Mohanty Vrs. The Senior Regional Manager, H.P. Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar reported in 2020 (II) ILR-CUT 398, this Court had the occasion to examine the scope of intra-Court appeal and observed as follows: „11. *** Let us first examine the power of the Division Bench while entertaining a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment/order of the Single Judge. This writ appeal has been nomenclatured as an application under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, 1992. Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been made applicable to this Court by virtue of Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Letters Patent Appeal is an intra-Court appeal where under the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as vested in the Single Bench. (Ref: (1996) 3 SCC 52: Baddula Lakshmaiah Vrs. Shri Anjaneya Swami Temple). The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the WA No.852 of 2025 Page 25 of 29 learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or inconsistent with any particular position in law. This scope of interference is within a narrow compass. Appellate jurisdiction under Letters Patent is really a corrective jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct errors, if any made.’ In the case of B. Venkatamuni Vrs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh reported in (2006) 13 SCC 449, it is held that in an intra-Court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may be entitled to reappraise both questions of fact and law, but entertainment of a Letters Patent Appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge. Even a Court of first appeal which is the final Court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint. Thus a writ appeal is an appeal on principle where the legality and validity of the judgment and/or order of the Single Judge is tested and it can be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is against established or settled principle of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been adopted by a Single Judge, the other view, howsoever appealing may be to the Division Bench; it is the view adopted by the Single Judge, which would, normally be allowed to prevail. If the discretion has been exercised by the Single Judge in good faith and after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed away by irrelevant matters and if two views are possible on the question, then also the Division Bench in writ appeal should not interfere, even though it would WA No.852 of 2025 Page 26 of 29 have exercised its discretion in a different manner, were the case come initially before it. The exercise of discretion by the Single Judge should manifestly be wrong which would then give scope of interference to the Division Bench.” 7.1. With the delineated position as enunciated in the aforesaid judgment of this Court, there is no confusion in mind that in case of finding of fact which has gone into the decision making process of the learned Single Judge if found to be perverse or de hors the evidence/ materials available on record, this Court in exercise of the power under Article 4 of the Rules of Orissa High Court, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna can interfere with the impugned judgment. 7.2. It is not a case of possibility of two views; rather the evidence made available in the record relating to writ petition and not disputed by the respondents before the learned Single Judge lead to suggest only one conclusion that the appellant could not be able to establish that it had furnished copy of Caste Certificate along with application form within the period specified in the Advertisement dated 17.05.2017. 7.3. In the case at hand, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the learned Single Judge having recorded findings based on uncontroverted material available on WA No.852 of 2025 Page 27 of 29 record and meticulous analysis of the documents forming part of the writ petition, there is little scope or occasion for this Court to intermeddle with the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023. Conclusion: 8. Given the above factual matrix and circumstances, no infirmity or irregularity is perceived in the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 rendered in W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023. 9. For the reasons ascribed supra and in the light of discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and bearing in mind the scope for interference while sitting in intra-Court appeal filed under Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, this Court does not incline to interfere with the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 rendered in W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023. 9.1. As a consequence of such position, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are required to carry out the directions contained in the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 rendered in W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023 of the learned Single Judge. WA No.852 of 2025 Page 28 of 29 10. In the result, this writ appeal, sans merit, is dismissed confirming the Judgment dated 25.04.2025 rendered in W.P.(C) No.40116 of 2023; and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree. (HARISH TANDON) CHIEF JUSTICE (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-Jun-2025 14:22:30 High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 26th June, 2025//Aswini/Laxmikant WA No.852 of 2025 Page 29 of 29