The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 16010 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Gurubari Mahanandia ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Sethy, [Additional Standing Counsel] Ms. S.A. Swain, [Advocate for Opposite Party No.6] ___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 24th December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in the present writ application assails the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Additional Page 1 of 12 District Magistrate (ADM), Subarnapur in Anganwadi Helper Second Appeal No.1 of 2025, whereby the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Birmaharajpur in Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.3 of 2024 was set aside. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that pursuant to an advertisement executed by the CDPO on 23.07.2024 inviting applications for engagement as Anganwadi Helpers in different Anganwadi Centers including Kumursingha Mini Anganwadi Center, the petitioner was one of the four candidates including Opposite Party No.6. In the selection process that followed, it was found that the Opposite Party No.6, despite not having produced her pass certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering was selected for engagement. The petitioner had raised objection pointing out the non-submission of Diploma Engineering Certificate by Opposite Party No.6 but the same was not considered by the Selection Committee. Opposite Party No.6 was engaged by order dated 30.08.2024. Page 2 of 12 3. The petitioner therefore, filed a writ application before this Court being W.P.(C) No.22751 of 2024, which
Decision
was disposed of by order dated 12.09.2024 directing her to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.3 of 2024 before the Sub- Collector, Birmaharajpur. After hearing all concerned, the Sub-Collector vide order dated 20.12.2024, held that the selected candidate had not uploaded her Diploma Certificate in Civil Engineering, equivalent to 12th standard at the time of application and also not before the Selection Committee. It was therefore, held that her selection was in violation of clause-5 of the advertisement. Accordingly, the engagement of Opposite Party No.6 was set aside and the petitioner being the next meritorious candidate was directed to be engaged. 4. The Opposite Party No.6, being aggrieved preferred second appeal before the ADM. After hearing both sides and on consideration of the relevant clauses of the advertisement as well as the revised guidelines dated 15.03.2023, the ADM found that the selected candidate Page 3 of 12 had uploaded the divisional marksheet issued by the State Counsel For Technical Education And Vocational Training (SCTE & VT) wherein, it was mentioned that she was a student of Dhabaleswar Institute of Polytechnic, Athagarh in the Civil Engineering stream. Basing on the marksheet, the CDPO, Birmaharajpur had prepared the comparative statement and selected her. The ADM further held that the marksheet proved the educational qualification of the appellant to be of 12th standard, which was uploaded along with the application and that she had secured the highest points among the contenders. As such, by order dated 04.06.2025, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Collector. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application with the following prayer:- “Under the above stated facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and Issue Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the ADM, Subarnapur in AWH Second Appeal No.1 of 2025 under Annexure- 10 should not be quashed and; If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule may be made (i) (ii) Page 4 of 12 absolute by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari the or any other appropriate writ quashing impugned under Annexure-10 and validating the engagement of the petitioner as per Annexure-9; 04.06.2025 dated order (iii) And may pass any other order/orders deem fit and proper. And for which act of kindness, the appellant a sin duty bound shall ever pray.” 6. The State did not file any counter but the State Counsel preferred to make oral submissions. Counter affidavit has however, been filed by the Opposite Party No.6 stating that she had uploaded the divisional marksheet issued by the SCTE & VT, Odisha reflecting her successful completion of Diploma in Civil Engineering from Dhabaleswar Institute of Polytechnic, Athagarh. It clearly indicates that she possesses the education qualification equivalent to +2 level as required under the guidelines. She also produced all the documents during scrutiny/verification and was found to have secured the highest marks among all four candidates. Since the document submitted by her was sufficient to establish that she had the required qualification, mere omission to upload the pass certificate cannot vitiate her selection. Page 5 of 12 7. Heard Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Sethy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. S.A. Swain, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.6. 8. Mr. Bahali forcefully argues that the advertisement clearly mentions that unless all required documents are uploaded, the application is liable to be rejected. Clause-3 of the advertisement specifies that the candidate should upload her educational qualification documents and copies of marksheets along with application form. This is a mandatory condition, which the Opposite Party No.6 violated by not uploading her Diploma pass certificate. She had only uploaded her Civil Engineering marksheet, which is not adequate. The first appellate authority had therefore, rightly held that her selection was not proper. Mr. Bahali further argues that the second appellate authority failed to appreciate that the Selection Committee has no power to deviate from the terms and conditions of the advertisement as also the Page 6 of 12 guidelines. In support of his contention, Bahali has relied upon the following judgments: The Karnatka State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. H.L Kaveri and Ors.1 Pushpendra Subordinate Services Board and Anr.2 Satya Narayan Bhujabala and Ors. v. Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Science and Research and Ors.3 v. Delhi Parnami Singh 9. Mr. Sethy, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the requirement as per the advertisement as well as the guidelines is +2 pass or its equivalent. There is no dispute that the Opposite Party No.6 possessed a Diploma in Civil engineering which has been held to be equivalent to +2 as certified by the competent authority. She had admittedly uploaded her marksheet but not the pass certificate. Since the marksheet by itself proved that she had passed the Diploma examination, there was nothing wrong in her selection, which the second appellate authority has held. 10. Ms. Swain would argue that admittedly the Opposite Party No.6 secured the highest marks and 1 (2020) 3 SCC 108 2 W.P (C) No.-2892/2019 of Delhi HC 3 W.P (C) No.-16290,16215,16308 & 16876 of 2022 of Orissa HC Page 7 of 12 therefore, as per the guidelines she was entitled to be selected and was selected. As regards, non-submission of the required documents, admittedly she had uploaded her divisional marksheet issued by the SCTE & VT, Odisha. The marksheet is the main document showing her qualification. Therefore, mere non-submission of the pass certificate cannot be a ground to reject her candidature. It is at best an irregularity but not a fatal defect. In support of her contentions, Ms. Swain has cited the following judgments: Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal4 State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari5 Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh6 Joginder Singh Virenderjit Singh Gill7 State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti8 Basavaiah v. H.L Ramesh9 through LRs. V. (dead) 11. From the facts narrated above, it is well evident that the Opposite Party No.6 was the most meritorious among all four candidates, having secured the highest