The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2017 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Sukantilata Das … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Kunja Sundar Das, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A For Opp.Party No.5 Advocate : Mr. Bansidhar Satpathy, --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 28.3.2025. JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner assails the order dated 18.2.2017 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 1 of 10 Balasore (Opp. Party No.3) in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.135/2010 whereby, her engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Gouda Sahi Anganwadi Centre was quashed and the concerned authorities were directed to disengage her and to take steps for selection of Anganwadi Worker out of the valid contesting candidates. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Khaira (Opp. Party No.4) in the district of Balasore on 18.11.2009 soliciting applications from the candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Gouda Sahi Anganwadi Centre. Four persons, including the Petitioner and the private Opp. Party No.5, were applicants. In the selection process, the Petitioner was found to be most eligible and was recommended for selection, basing on which she was engaged as Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 21.5.2010. 3. Being aggrieved, the Opp. Party No.5 preferred appeal being Anganwadi Appeal Case No.135/2010 before the A.D.M. (Opp. Party No.3) on the ground that W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 2 of 10 her candidature had been wrongly ignored. The A.D.M. vide order dated 12.8.2011 held that the candidature of Opp. Party No.5 had been wrongly ignored and therefore, quashed the engagement of the Petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
The Petitioner challenged the order of the A.D.M. before this Court in W.P.(C) No.24433/2011. By order dated 23.4.2015, this Court set aside the order of the A.D.M. and remitted the matter for fresh decision with direction to engage an Authorized Officer to conduct inquiry regarding the residence of the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.5. Pursuant to such order, the A.D.M. authorized the Tahasildar, Khaira to conduct inquiry. The Tahasildar, Khaira conducted inquiry and submitted report on 14.8.2015 stating that Opp. Party No.5 belongs to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. Considering the report as above, the A.D.M., vide the impugned order, held that the candidature of Opp. Party No.5 had been wrongly ignored by the Selection Committee, which is contrary to the provisions of the revised guidelines of the Government. Accordingly, the engagement of the Petitioner was set W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 3 of 10 aside and the Selection Committee was directed to select Anganwadi Worker out of the valid contesting candidates as per the previous advertisement. 4. According to the Petitioner, the order of the A.D.M. is unsustainable since it is based entirely on the report of the Tahasildar, Khaira, which was submitted without conducting any physical inquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 5. The stand of the State authorities is that the Selection Committee had ignored the candidature of the Opp. Party No.5 wrongly by holding that she does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. However, as per the report submitted by the Tahasildar it was revealed that her house belongs to the service area and her name finds place at Sl. No.413 of the Survey Register while the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No.717. Therefore, the A.D.M. rightly directed disengagement of the Petitioner. 6. The stand of the private Opp. Party No.5 is more or less the same as that of the State authorities. W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 4 of 10 Additionally, it is stated that she secured more marks than the Petitioner in the matriculation examination and therefore, is more meritorious than her. As such, she ought to have been selected. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. K.S. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr.B. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the private Opp. Party No.5. 8. Mr.K.S. Das would argue that the Petitioner is admittedly a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre and possesses the required eligibility. She was therefore, validly selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker. In the meantime, the Opp. Party No.5 has been engaged as M.B.K in Jhinkiria Gram Panchayat for which she should no longer claim to be engaged. 9. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, would argue that as directed by this Court, the A.D.M. authorized the Tahasildar, Khaira to conduct inquiry into the residential status of the parties. It was found that Opp. Party No.5 is in fact a W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 5 of 10 resident of the service area. It was also so revealed from other materials. As such, her candidature could not have been ignored by the Selection Committee at the relevant time. 10. Mr.B.Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the private Opp.Party No.5, would argue that the fact that the Opp. Party No.5 is a resident of the service area has been clearly established in the inquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, Khaira. Moreover, she secured more marks in the matriculation examination than the Petitioner and therefore, was eligible for being selected. As regards her engagement as M.B.K, Mr.Satpathy would argue that the same is a schematic post whereas an Anganwadi Worker can be promoted as Supervisor, which is a civil post. 11. The facts of the case, as narrated before, are not disputed. The Petitioner was selected for engagement and was engaged. The Selection Committee did not consider the candidature of Opp. Party No.5 on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of the Centre. In the appeal preferred by the Opp. Party W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 6 of 10 No.5, the A.D.M., basing on the report submitted by the Tahasildar, Khaira on 11.8.2010 found the Opp. Party No.5 to be a resident of the service area. The matter having been carried by the Petitioner to this Court was again remitted for fresh disposal with direction to the A.D.M. to engage an Authorized Officer to conduct inquiry. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Khaira was authorized to conduct the inquiry. The report of the Tahasildar, Khaira, which is enclosed as Annexure- A/4 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, reveals that said inquiry was conducted in presence of the R.I., Sanjaypur, Revenue Supervisor, Khaira, ICDS Supervisor, Khaira and the Anganwadi Worker. The Tahasildar, Khaira perused the register containing the survey list of village Gouda Sahi and found the name of Opp. Party No.5 present therein at Sl. No.413. The name of the Petitioner was also found at Sl. No.717. The A.D.M. took note of the fact that both the Petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.5 belong to Totapada revenue village and accordingly had obtained residential certificates from Khaira Tahasildar. The W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 7 of 10 A.D.M. also perused the survey list of Gouda Sahi Anganwadi Centre, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-D/4 to the additional affidavit filed by the Opp. Party No.4, which reveals that the Opp. Party No.5 belongs to Gouda Sahi with her house comes under the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. Thus, the view expressed by the A.D.M. that the candidate of Opp. Party No.5 was wrongly ignored, cannot be faulted with. 12. It has been argued that the report of the Tahasildar was submitted without conducting physical inquiry. This is an unacceptable argument for the reason that the findings of the Tahasildar are based on verification of the relevant registers and in presence of Government functionaries and the Anganwadi Worker. No malafides can be attributed to the Tahasildar so as to presume that the report submitted by him was deliberately erroneous. 13. As regards opportunity of personal hearing, this Court in the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition never issued such direction, but directed the A.D.M. W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 8 of 10 to authorize an officer to conduct inquiry. Such inquiry was conducted by an officer as senior as the Tahasildar. The Petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to why the report submitted by him should be viewed with suspicion. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that the Opp. Party No.5 is actually not a resident of the service area and resides elsewhere but was deliberately shown as such. This Court finds nothing wrong in acceptance of the report by the A.D.M. 14. The argument that Opp. Party No.5 being presently employed should not challenge the selection of the Petitioner can be considered only to be rejected. Since the A.D.M. found from the materials on record that her candidature was wrongly ignored, a finding which this Court concurs with, condoning the mistake committed by the Selection Committee even at this distance of time would amount to perpetuating the illegality. Her present engagement, if any, is immaterial in the context. W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 9 of 10 15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Opp. Party No.3.
Decision
16. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 02-Apr-2025 10:44:19 W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2017 Page 10 of 10