The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 18968 of 2023 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Kamala Majhi ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mohanty, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
petitioner initially approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1256 of 2022, which was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2022 granting liberty to her to pursue her remedy before the appropriate forum. According to the petitioner preferred an appeal being RAC (AWW) Appeal Case No. 4 of 2022 before the ADM, Nabarangpur. The ADM, Nabarangpur after hearing the parties and on considering the report of the Page 2 of 7 CDPO, found no merit in the appeal and accordingly rejected the same. Being aggrieved the petitioner, has filed this writ application. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Opposite Parties stating therein that there are two Anganwadi Centres in Gambhariguda village namely, Gambhariguda-1 and Gambhariguda-2. In the survey report prepared by the Anganwadi Worker, it was found that the petitioner belongs to Gambhariguda 2 Anganwadi Centre whereas the Opposite Party No.7 belongs to Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre. As per the guidelines issued by the Government the Opposite Party No.7 was rightly selected. Further, the ADM directed the CDPO, Chandahandi to submit a report regarding the residential status of both the applicants. The CDPO upon after conducting an inquiry found that the petitioner is a resident of Gambhariguda-2 Anganwadi Centre while the Opposite Party No. 7 is a resident of Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre and therefore, is a resident of the service area of the centre in question. As such, the appeal was rightly dismissed. Page 3 of 7 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the private Opposite Party No.7. The stand taken by the State has referred above has been more or less reiterated therein. Further reliance has been placed on the report of the CDPO relied upon by the ADM. 5. Heard Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. A.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.7. 6. Mr. Pattnaik would argue that the appellate authority has not applied his judicial mind in adjudicating the appeal but has relied entirely upon the report of the CDPO and therefore, the findings arrived at cannot be sustained. He further submits that report of the CDPO is factually wrong inasmuch as the name of the petitioner’s husband has found place in the voter list of Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre in the past. All these facts have been ignored by the Appellate Authority. 7. Mr. Behera, learned State Counsel draws attention of the Court the survey report enclosed to the counter as Annexure- A/4 wherein the name of the petitioner’s husband finds place Page 4 of 7 in the survey list prepared for Gambhariguda-2 at SL. No. 31. He further refers to the inquiry report submitted by the CDPO, pursuant to the direction of the ADM on 01.12.2022 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is a resident of the service area of Gambhariguda Anganwadi Centre No. 2. 8. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Private Opposite Party also makes similar submissions as the State counsel and refers to certain documents, filed earlier through a memo to indicate that the petitioner has taken all benefits under different welfare schemes of the Government as a resident of Gambhariguda-2 Anganwadi Centre. 9. This being a challenge to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, this Court would like to keep in perspective the settled position of law at the outside that the scope of interference in a writ application is limited in such cases. Interference is permissible only when the impugned order is passed contrary to the materials on record or against the weight of evidence on record, Interference is also permissible when the conclusion of the authority is such as no prudent person would ever arrive at. Testing the Page 5 of 7 impugned order on the touchstone of the legal proposition as referred above, this Court finds that the basic ground of challenge to the impugned order is that there was no independent application of mind by the Appellate Authority and the report of the CDPO was given undue weightage. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court that report of the CDPO is actuated by malafides but nothing has been demonstrated to justify such contentions. A feeble argument was made to the effect that the CDPO apex to the distant relative of the Opposite Party no.7 but the same was also not substantiated by adducing proper proof. Even accepting that the CDPO is a distant relative of the Opposite Party No.7, the same would not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the report submitted by him on the direction of the ADM would be deliberately wrong/incorrect. 10. This Court further finds that the ADM has not only relied upon the report of the CDPO but also referred to the contentions advanced by the parties and also perused the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar and the map prepared by the CDPO, Chandahandi showing the houses of Page 6 of 7 the parties. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no application of independent judicial mind by the Appellate Authority. Be that as it may, this Court also finds that the State has enclosed the survey report to the counter affidavit and copy of the inquiry report of the CDPO, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is a resident of Gambhariguda-2 Anganwadi Centre whereas the Opposite Party No.7 is a resident of Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre, the area in which the Anganwadi Centre is located.
Arguments
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.Behera, Additional Government Advocate for the State. Mr. A.K.Mohanty, Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.7 _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 7th January, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call upon the opposite parties to show cause and upon their failure to show cause Page 1 of 7 or showing insufficient cause, may further be pleased to direct the opposite party No.2 to 4 to the cancel Opposite Party No.7 and appoint the petitioner as the Anganwadi worker in Gambhariguda Anganwadi Centre; the selection/ appointment of And pass any other order (s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case. And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as duty bound ever pray.” 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that she was an applicant for Anganwadi Worker of Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre under Chandahandi ICDS project in the district of Nabarangpur, pursuant to advertisement dated 16.09.2021. Amongst others, the private Opposite Party No. 7 was also an applicant. In the merit list prepared, the Opposite Party No.7 was selected and having secured total 68.66% of marks. The petitioner secured 61.83%. Being aggrieved by the selection of Opposite Party no. 7 the
Decision
11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no justified or compelling to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the application is found to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 7th Day of January, 2025/ Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 13-Jan-2025 11:49:21 Page 7 of 7