The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 18230 of 2022 An application under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Sabitri Padhan ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. K.K. Swain, K. Swain J.R. Khuntia, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.R. Dash, [Additional Government Advocate] M/s. A. K. Dei, Advocate (for O.P. No.6) _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 15th July, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petition has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly
Decision
prayed that the writ petition may be allowed. And Page 1 of 8 (A) an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur in Anganwadi Appeal No.01 of 2022 under Annexure-7 and necessary direction may be made to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Redam Anganwadi Center under Ulunda Block in the district of Subarnapur with all consequential benefits within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. And (B) or other direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner; order/orders any And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. An advertisement was issued on 10.11.2021 by the CDPO, Ulunda for engagement of Anganwadi worker in Redam Anganwadi center. The petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 were applicants along with others‘. The candidature of Opposite Party No.6 was rejected during the selection process on the ground that she had produced a Residential Certificate, which was issued more than six months prior to the date of advertisement which was contrary to the norms laid down therein. So, despite scoring the highest marks among all the eligible Page 2 of 8 candidates, the Opposite Party No.6 was found ineligible and the petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria in all respects was found suitable for engagement. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with an engagement order on 23.12.2021 by the CDPO pursuant to which she joined on the same day and has been discharging her duties till date. Being aggrieved by her non-selection, the Opposite Party No.6 filed an appeal before the ADM, Subarnapur being Anganwadi Appeal Case No.1 of 2022. After considering the contentions raised, the ADM held that since both the petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 are residents of the service area of the anganwadi center and Opposite Party No.6, being a Scheduled Caste candidate is more meritorious than the petitioner, the selection of the latter was bad. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the selection of the petitioner was quashed with direction to issue fresh advertisement. Challenging the order of the ADM in appeal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The case of the State, as can be seen from of its counter affidavit, is that the Selection Committee had Page 3 of 8 made selection strictly on the basis of the norms laid down in the advertisement though admittedly, Opposite Party No.6 was more meritorious than her. 4. The impugned order passed by the ADM was thus, sought to be justified. The stand of the private Opposite Party No.6 is that the entire Redam village is within the service area of which, she is undisputedly a permanent resident. Moreover, she is more meritorious than the petitioner and also belongs to the Scheduled Caste category. Therefore, her candidature could not have been rejected only on the ground of production of an old residential certificate. 5. Heard Mr.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.R. Dash, learned Add. Government Advocate for the State and Miss A.K. Dei, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 6. 6. Mr. Swain would argue that as per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the advertisement cannot in any manner be relaxed in instant case. The Opposite Party No. 6 admittedly did not produce a certificate issued within six months prior to the date of Page 4 of 8 advertisement, whereas the petitioner produced such a certificate. Mr. Swain further argues that once the Opposite Party No.6 is held to be ineligible the fact that she had secured more marks than the petitioner is immaterial. 7. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned State Counsel, submits that there is no dispute that the Opposite Party No.6 is a permanent resident of the service area of the anganwadi center. The guidelines do not prescribe any such condition of producing residential certificate being issued prior to six months from the date of the advertisement. Since Opposite Party No.6 secured the highest marks, the Selection Committee was in error in ignoring her candidature. 8. Ms. Dei, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.6 advanced similar arguments as the State Counsel referred above and adds that the Opposite Party No.6 having secured the highest marks and being a Scheduled Caste candidate ought to have been given preference without taking the hyper-technical plea of submission of old resident certificate by her. Page 5 of 8 9. The facts of the case are not disputed. Perusal of the advertisement reveals that paragraph-5 thereof provides that the resident and caste certificate should have been issued within six months prior to the date of the advertisement. The date of the advertisement being 10.11.2021, the certificate ought to have been obtained on or after 10.05.2021. Admittedly, the Opposite Party No.6 produced a resident certificate issued on 03.06.2020. Reference to the revised guidelines issued by the government in Women and Child Development Department on 02.07.2007 does not reveal any such stipulation for the resident certificate to have been issued within six months prior to the date of the advertisement. But then such a condition having been provided in the advertisement, it obviously requires compliance by the candidates particularly when there is no challenge to the same. In other words, the Opposite Party No.6 not having challenged the above condition in the advertisement and having willfully submitted her candidature fully knowing the conditions cannot turn around and question the same after becoming unsuccessful in the selection process. It Page 6 of 8 goes without saying that the authorities have no power to relax the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. It is also borne out from the pleadings of the parties that an attempt was made by the Opposite Party No.6 to produce a new residential certificate by seeking permission of the Selection Committee but the same was turned down and according to this Court, rightly so. This only goes to show the conduct of the Opposite Party No.6, who initially agreed with the conditions at least during the selection process and having failed in her attempt, turned around to challenge the selection. Such a course of action, obviously cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, merely by securing more marks than the petitioner, she cannot be granted any premium for being appointed on the face of the fact that she was ineligible in the first place. 10. Though not provided in the guidelines, yet the conditions stipulated in the advertisement obviously is to ensure that the candidates are actually residents of the village/service area of the center in question as it is quite possible that a person in whose favour a resident Page 7 of 8 certificate was issued earlier may have moved out of said area subsequently. Thus, it is only to ensure that the candidates belong to the village/service area that the above stipulation has been made in the advertisement. This is in consonance with the spirit of the revised guidelines. 11. From the foregoing narration, it is evident that the ADM fell into error in ignoring the condition stipulated in the advertisement to hold that the selection process was not proper. The impugned order cannot therefore, be sustained. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order under Annexure-7 is hereby set aside. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 16-Jul-2024 20:15:19 Page 8 of 8