The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 17909 of 2025 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Puja Sahoo ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... _____________________________________________ Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Pattnaik, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S.Routray, Additional Standing Counsel _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 2nd July, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “Therefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule "NISI" calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why: (i) the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 under Annexure-12 passed by the Collector, Cuttack in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 15/2025 shall not be quashed; the order dated 08.04.2025 under Anenxure-9 in passed by the Sub-Collector, Banki (ii) Page 1 of 7 (iii) Anganwadi Case No. 02/2024 shall not be quashed; the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue as Anganwadi Helper of Indira Awas Colony Anganwadi Centre of Dulanpur Village being rightly engaged pursuant to appointment order No. 772, dated 05.09.2024; If the Opp. Parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause the rule shall be made absolute; And order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper; And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. other pass any
Legal Reasoning
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that pursuant to advertisement dated 12.07.2024 issued by the CDPO, Dampada, the petitioner submitted application for engagement as Anganwadi Helper of Dulanpur Anganwadi Centre. It appears from the records that there were three applicants including the petitioner and the present Opposite Party No.5. The petitioner was found to be most suitable and was decided to be engaged and accordingly, engagement order was issued in her favour on 05.09.2024. The present Opposite Party No.5 preferred appeal challenging the selection of the petitioner on the ground that her own candidature was wrongly rejected. The Sub-Collector being the appellate authority, after considering all materials placed before Page 2 of 7 him and the contentions raised, allowed the appeal by setting aside the engagement of the petitioner and directing the CDPO to engage her. The petitioner challenged the order before the Collector, Cuttack in Anganwadi Appeal No. 15 of 2025. In the appeal memo, the following grounds were taken: (i) (ii) (iii) “Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Sub-Collector, Banki the appellant prefers the present memorandum of appeal on the following grounds: The impugned order is not based upon the terms and conditions of the advertisement so also the revised guidelines which stipulates that the candidate should belong to the service area of the AWC. Admittedly the Respondent No.3 does not belong to service area. The Respondent No.3 has obtained resident certificate to Village-Dulanpur by producing ROR of Vilalge-Bilipada which was clarified by the Tahasildar. The Respondent No.3 and her family members are getting difference schematic benefits from both State Govt. and Central Govt. as permanent resident of Village-Bilipada. But the learned Sub-Collector wrongfully the resident certificate and passed the impugned order for which the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3 is presently serving as Gosthi Sahayika under Odisha Jibika Mission but at the time of submission of application she has not taken permission and also not disclosed about the same. Therefore, one cannot be appointed in two posts at the same time as she has not resigned from the post till date. But the learned Sub-Collector while passing the impugned order did not take note of the same. impugned order dated 08.04.2025 Therefore, passed by in learned Sub-Collector, Banki Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 02/2024 being illegal and arbitrary is liable to be quashed/set-aside.” relied upon the the The Collector, after considering the materials on record and particularly being satisfied that the Opposite Party Page 3 of 7 No.5 was permanent resident of the village in question, was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Collector. The appeal was thus dismissed. Said order is impugned in the present writ application.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. T.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Routray, learned ASC for the State. 4. Mr. Pattnaik would argue that the Collector has committed illegality in not considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner in her memorandum of appeal. Though the collector considered ground No(i), he did not touch the other ground which has a material bearing on the outcome of the case. He further submits that the Opposite Party No.5 is actually a resident of village Bilipada but managed to obtain her resident certificate showing her a permanent resident of village Dulanpur. Since she failed to produce any documents relating to ROR of any property in village Dulanpur, the resident certificate issued in her favour should not be taken into consideration. That apart, the Opposite Party No.5 is serving as Gosthi Sahayika (CRP) under Odisha Jibika Mission and she applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper Page 4 of 7 without seeking permission nor by resigning from such post. On the contrary, the petitioner is an unemployed lady. 5. Mr. Routray, learned State counsel would argue that the Sub-Collector as well as the Collector’s order is based on the evidence placed before them and in any case, it was found that the candidature of Opposite Party No.5 had been wrongly not considered. 6. Reading of the order passed by the Sub-Collector in Anganwadi Appeal No. 2 of 2024 reveals that an inquiry was conducted to ascertain the residential status of the Opposite Party No. 5. The genuineness of the resident certificate produced by her was verified and was found to be valid. The resident certificate mentioned that her family is presently residing at Dulanpur in the district of Cuttack for 30 years and 5 months. The Revenue Inspector, Similipur clarified on the basis of field verification and on the statement of the villagers of village Bilipada that the Opposite Party No.5 has been living for about 15 years in Dulanpur Mouza. Mr. Pattnaik has argued that Opposite Party No.5 has no landed property Page 5 of 7 in Dulanpur Mouza and is residing on Government land which is also of Jungle Kisam. 7. This Court is unable to accept the argument as above inasmuch as the fact the Opposite Party No.5 has been residing over a Government land may invite other penal consequence as per law but the same, ipso facto, does not nullify the fact of her physical residence at the place. Perusal of the order passed by the Collector reveals that as per the report dated 29.08.2024 of the Tahsildar, it was found that the resident certificate issued in favour of Opposite Party No.5 is genuine. The Collector was satisfied from the records that she had been residing for about 15 years in Dulanpur Mouza after shifting from Billipada Mouza after her marriage in 2011. Referring to Rule 5 of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 2019, the Collector accepted the resident certificate of Opposite Party No. 5 and therefore, refused to interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Collector. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector. 8. As regards the other contention raised by the petitioner that the Collector did not consider the other Page 6 of 7 ground, this Court finds that the petitioner, in addition to the ground of residence of Opposite Party No.5 had also raised the ground that she was working as Gosthi Sahayika at the time of submission of her application. This Court is of the considered view that merely working as Gosthi Sahayika cannot disentitle the Opposite Party No.5 from being considered for engagement as Anganwadi Helper. Of course, once she is engaged as Anganwadi Helper, it may be necessary for her to resign from the said post but merely for the reason of her working as Gosthi Sahayika, it would not be proper to reject her candidature. 9. Thus, from a conspectus of the facts, contentions raised and the discussion made, this Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned order so as to be persuaded to interfere therewith. Resultantly, the writ application being devoid of merit, is dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 08-Jul-2025 13:06:39 Page 7 of 7