The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 16124 of 2024 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Manorama Mohapatra ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, [Additional Government Advocate] Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Achary for O.P. No.2 Mr. S. Satapathy, [Advocate for O.P. No.9] ___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 19th December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- Page 1 of 15 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule Nisi in calling upon the Opposite Parties to file show cause as to why the impugned order under Annexure-8 dated 01.05.2024 and order dated 04.06.2020 under Anneure-7 series and order dated 28.10.2019 under Annexure-6 shall not be quashed/set aside and the petitioner shall not be made engagement of her for the post of ASHA for village-Sankarpur under Gandarda Gram Panchayat of Remuna Block of District-Balasore instead of Opposite Party No.9 with immediate effect for a just decision of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an advertisement vide notification dated 23.09.2019 was issued by the A.N.M. of Gandarda Sub-Center of Remuna CHC inviting applications for engagement of ASHA for Sankarpur village. The petitioner submitted her application along with all required documents. The verification of documents was held on 17.10.2019, when the petitioner, though present could not produce her original matriculation compartmental certificate due to unavoidable circumstances. The provisional merit list was published on the same day, wherein the petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks among all candidates. On the next day i.e., on 18.10.2019, the Page 2 of 15 petitioner submitted an application before the ANM seeking leave to produce the original certificate as she could not do so earlier because of the serious illness of her mother. However, the authorities did not accede to her request and published the final merit list on 28.10.2019, selecting Opposite Party No.9 as ASHA on the ground that the petitioner had not produced her original certificate during verification. 3. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27875 of 2019 challenging such decision, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2020 directing the BDO, Remuna to consider her representation. No action was taken by the BDO but by order dated 04.06.2020, the Selection Committee considered the matter and held that the candidature of the petitioner had been rightly rejected. The Petitioner, therefore, again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25681 of 2020. By order dated 07.03.2024, this Court held that the Selection Committee could not have decided the matter on the principle that no person can be a judge of his own cause. As such, the Nodal Page 3 of 15 Officer was directed to consider the representation after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. By order dated 01.05.2024, the Nodal Officer rejected the representation, by holding that the Petitioner was not eligible for selection as ASHA as she had not produced the original 10th mark-sheet at the time of document verification on 17.10.2019. Challenging such rejection of her representation, the Petitioner has
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in the present writ application with the prayer as quoted before. It is contended by the Petitioner that since the advertisement indicated that seven days’ time was to be given for inviting objections from the date of verification of documents and publication of the provisional merit list, the Selection Committee ought to have granted time to the Petitioner to produce her original certificate instead of acting in haste. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the B.D.O, Remuna (O.P. No.6). It is stated that the Petitioner was not eligible for selection as she could not produce the original Page 4 of 15 matriculation compartmental certificate at the time of document verification. The advertisement does not provide for extension of time for production of wanting documents, if the same are not produced on the date of verification. The candidature of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly rejected. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter of O.P. No.6 inter alia, stating that in the provisional merit list prepared on 17.10.2019, the Petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks being 19.65% whereas, Opposite Party No.9 secured 18.55%. Therefore, the Petitioner being more meritorious, her candidature could not have been rejected. It is further stated that because of the serious illness of her mother, she being mentally disturbed was unable to trace out the original certificate but found the same subsequently. She therefore requested for granting her time to produce the certificate on the next date of verification i.e., 18.10.2019. Instead of granting her time, the Selection Committee went on to finalize the merit list on 28.10.2019. Since ten days were to be given Page 5 of 15 to invite objections from the date of display of the provisional merit list, the Petitioner should have been granted time to produce the certificate. 5. The private Opposite Party No.9 (selected candidate) has also filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.6 in his counter has more or less been taken by her. It is stated that since the petitioner could not produce the original certificate, her candidature was rightly rejected. The Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit reiterating that she had secured more marks than Opposite Party No.9 and could not produce the original certificate because of the serious illness of her mother. 6. Heard Mr. P.C. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State; Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. R. Achary for the National Health Mission (O.P. No.2) and Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the Private Opposite Party No.9. Page 6 of 15 7. Mr. Jena would argue that when the activity timeline for selection of ASHA provides for grant of ten days’ time for inviting objections from the date of display of the provisional merit list and the Petitioner had submitted written request to grant permission to produce the original certificate on the next day, the authorities, instead of considering such request went on to finalize the selection on 28.10.2019. This, according to Mr. Jena is contrary to the activity timeline. He further submits that admittedly, the Petitioner is more meritorious than the private Opposite Party but was not selected on the technical ground of non-production of original certificate, which is contrary to law. In support of his contention as above, Mr. Jena has cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Sweety Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 1and Charles. K. Skaria Vs. Dr. C. Mathew2. 8. Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that as per the norms, the Petitioner is required to submit the original documents, 1 2023 INSC 853 2 AIR 1980 SC 1230 Page 7 of 15 the copies of which were submitted by her earlier along with the application. Since she failed to do so, her candidature was rightly not accepted, despite being more meritorious than Opposite Party No.9, who satisfied all the requirements. 9. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. R. Achary submits that the National Health Mission has no direct role to play in the selection of ASHA but has issued guidelines which have been strictly followed. He further submits that the selection in the instant case was done strictly adhering to the guidelines. 10. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.9 would submit that the fact that the Petitioner was more meritorious is inconsequential because, unless a candidate satisfies the eligibility criteria, she cannot be brought within the zone of consideration for selection. 11. The facts of the case as narrated are not disputed. The notification dated 23.09.2019 mentions that the minimum educational qualification of the candidates Page 8 of 15 must be class VII pass. The notification requires the candidates to produce certain documents including the educational testimonials. Significantly, it is stated that the attested copies of the documents are to be submitted along with the application form. It is further specified that such attestation must be done by the local BDO/ABDO. It is not disputed that the copy of matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner along with her application was duly attested by the ABDO, Remuna on 30.09.2019. All other documents were also similarly attested. 12. It would now be proper to examine the implication of the requirement to produce attested copies of the documents. The word ‘attest’ is defined as follows in the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary: (i) (ii) To affirm or bear proof of the truth or validity of something. To be evidence of something. Also, the word ‘attest’ is defined as follows in the Law Lexicon: (i) (ii) said of a fact, statement supported by evidence or proof said of a written form of a word or phrase; substantiated by its occurrence at a specified date. Page 9 of 15 13. In the present context, ‘attestation’ would mean, to certify that the copy of the document being attested is the true copy of its original. By necessary implication, it would mean that the person attesting the document was satisfied that the document being attested by him was the true copy/ reproduction of its original. In other words, it can be presumed that the ABDO, who attested the matriculation certificate of the petitioner, was satisfied that it was the true copy of its original. 14. The fact that the advertisement requires production of the attested copies is highly significant. Though, the candidates may have been required to produce the original documents at the time of verification yet, it cannot be said that the attested documents were of no value. Once the document has been duly attested and that too by the authority required by the notification to do so, it cannot be brushed aside only because its original was not produced, unless of course, it is demonstrated that what Page 10 of 15 was attested was actually not a true copy of its original or was a fake. 15. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not the case of anybody that the Petitioner did not have matriculation qualification or that the copy of the certificate attested by the ABDO was a fabricated/forged document. The norms of selection obviously lay down that the most meritorious candidate should be selected, if otherwise eligible. Admittedly, the Petitioner was more meritorious than the private Opposite Party and therefore, her candidature could not have been rejected by treating her as not eligible. 16. In the case of Sweety Kumari (Supra), dealing with an almost similar situation the Supreme Court held, on the facts of the said case that the requirement to produce the original certificates at the time of interview was directory and not mandatory and as true copies had been submitted by the candidates, non-production of the originals could not have been a ground to cancel their selection. In the case of Charles. K. Skaria (Supra), Page 11 of 15 similar view was taken by the Supreme Court wherein, attested copies were produced. 17. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the provisional merit list was displayed on 17.09.2019. The activity timeline attached to the advertisement notification provides that ten days are to be granted for receipt of objections from the date of display of the provisional merit list. The Petitioner submitted a representation specifying the reasons for not producing the certificate earlier and seeking leave to produce it. The representation was never taken into consideration. The Petitioner has averred the following in this regard in paragraph-7 of her writ application: “That since as per the advertisement under Annexure- 1 it has been stated that if any candidates became failure to produce their original documents which they have been submitted in course of making of their application then they can produce the same within 7 days, accordingly on 18.10.2019 the petitioner made an application before the A.N.M., Gandarda-Opposite Party No.8 as she has been her original Matriculation compartmental Certificate and intend to submit before the Nodal Officer. The copy of such application dated 18.10.2019 of the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure-5.” Page 12 of 15 18. This has been replied by Opposite Party No.6 in the following manner in paragraph-9 of its counter. “That, in reply to the averments made by the petitioner in Para-7 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the averments made by the petitioner is not tenable because in the advertisement nothing has been mentioned regarding wanting of documents within seven days if any candidate fails to produce on the day of verification. Further the Opp. Party No-6 the A.N.M, Gandarda Sub-Centre got the letter of petitioner on dt. 18.10.2019 but the verification date was on 17.10.2019 and resolution was also passed on the same dale i.e., 17.10.2019 by the selection committee after verification of original documents of all candidates from the provisional list. Copy of letter of the petitioner on dt. 18.10.2019 & copy of verification of original documents dtd. 17.10.2019 are enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C/4 & D/4 respectively” 19. Thus, receipt of the representation of the Petitioner submitted on 18.10.2019 is admitted but nothing has been stated as to why the same was not considered. Admittedly, the provisional merit list was finalized on 28.10.2019. Since the same was within the period when objections were invited, there was no reason why the Petitioner was not allowed to submit her original certificate, having regard to the fact that, she was most meritorious candidate Page 13 of 15 20. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that cancellation of the Petitioner’s candidature solely on the ground of non-production of the original certificate cannot be countenanced in law. 21. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the Nodal Officer has not considered these vital aspects of the matter at all and has somewhat mechanically rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground of non- production of the original certificate ignoring the fact that she had, as required by the advertisement, produced attested copy thereof. 22. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts, law and the contentions raised, this Court is unable to persuade itself to concur with the reason cited for rejection of the representation of the petitioner. The impugned order is, thus, held unsustainable in the eye of law warranting interference by this Court. 23.
Decision
In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned orders under Annexures 7 and 8 are hereby quashed. The impugned select list dated 28.10.2019 is also Page 14 of 15 quashed. Consequently, the engagement of Opposite Party No.9 as ASHA is set aside. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to engage the Petitioner as ASHA forthwith. 24. It is made clear that though such engagement of the Petitioner shall relate back to the date on which Opposite Party No.9 was selected, yet she shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the said period. However, the said period shall be notionally reckoned for other service benefits, if any. It is further directed that as Opposite Party No.9 cannot be blamed for the erroneous selection, the authorities may explore the possibility of engaging her in any available vacant post of ASHA. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:58:27 High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 19th of December, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Steno Page 15 of 15