Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Bhanumati Dalei @ Mirikhojia v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 19569 of 2023 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Bhanumati Dalei @ Mirikhojia .…… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha and others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. Sarojananda Mishra & B. Dash, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 7th August, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in the present writ application challenges the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Keonjhar in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 01/2022. Page 1 of 10 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that pursuant to establishment of a new Anganwadi Center known as Kundala-II Purunasahi Anganwadi Center, an advertisement was published by the C.D.P.O., Saharapada on 06.07.2021 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers for the said center defining the service area of the center as “From Guda Sahi to Mahanta Sahi”. The petitioner, being a Schedule Tribe candidate and possessing all other requisite qualifications submitted her application. Three other applicants including the present opposite party No.5 also submitted their applications. In the selection committee meeting, on a comparative assessment of the merit of the candidates it was found that the petitioner had secured more marks than all other candidates. However, she was not selected for engagement on the ground that she is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center. The petitioner sought for information from the C.D.P.O. regarding the exact service area of the center. In reply submitted on 03.11.2021, the CDPO informed that there is no prescribed guideline for determining the exact service Page 2 of 10 area and that the report of the household survey register submitted by the main Kundala Anganwadi Worker was accepted. Further, the area particulars as specified by the main Anganwadi Worker and Lady Supervisor was accepted as the service area. It was specifically stated that house No. 001 to 104 forms the service area. Again as per report submitted by the Anganwadi Worker in–charge, the petitioner does not belong to the service area as her house number is 108. It is stated that the said report cannot be
Legal Reasoning
acted upon as it was submitted by opposite party No.5, who was herself an applicant and Anganwadi Helper of the main Anganwadi Center. Furthermore, the house number of the petitioner is 87 as per the voter list of the village. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the ADM. She submitted her written note on 29.08.2022 but the same was stated in the order as having been filed on 18.10.2022. Further, despite adjourning the case for passing the final order, no such order was passed. Ultimately, on 20.12.2022, final order was passed rejecting the appeal of the petitioner without considering the specific grounds urged by her. It is Page 3 of 10 further stated that as per the guidelines, a person working as a Helper of a particular center can be considered for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of the same center but not otherwise. In the instant case, the opposite party No.5 was a Helper in another Anganwadi Center and not the center for which the advertisement had been issued. On such facts, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State opposite parties. It is stated that as per the report of the household survey the service area of the Anganwadi Center is from Guda Sahi to Mahanta Sahi from House holding Serial No. 1 to 104. The petitioner’s house number is 108, whereas that of opposite party No.5 is 61. This was certified by the report of Anganwadi Worker and Sector Lady Supervisor. As per the government guidelines, a new Anganwadi Center was established by grouping 400 to 800 people. The new center was accordingly established by allotting house numbers from serial No. 1 to 104 comprising Page 4 of 10 475 numbers of population. It is reiterated that the selection was made purely on the basis of joint enquiry report of concerned Anganwadi Worker and Sector Lady Supervisor as per population and house holding. The selection committee has proceeded on the basis of the report submitted by the Anganwadi Helper of the main Center as
Decision
per Rule. On such basis, the impugned order is sought to be justified as proper and correct. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit stating that the opposite party No.5 being herself a beneficiary, the report prepared by her should not have been accepted more so as the same is apparently contrary to the voter list as also the report of the Lady Supervisor mentioning the house of the petitioner as 87 and not 108. The survey register clearly reveals that the petitioner’s house number is 87 and not 108. Further, as per the guidelines, the opposite party no. 5 not having worked as Anganwadi Helper of the center in question, cannot be given preference. Page 5 of 10 5. Heard Mr. Sarojananda Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Be it noted that despite valid service of notice there was no appearance from the side of the opposite party No.5. 6. From the narration of facts as made above it is evident that the dispute boils down to the question whether the petitioner belongs to the service area of Kundala-II Anganwadi Center or not. The advertisement dated 06.07.2021 clearly mentions the service area as Guda Sahi to Mahanta Sahi. Such being the specification without any further qualification as to the exact area, it is only natural to suppose that all houses included in Guda Sahi and Mahanta Sahi would be treated as service area. To reiterate, there being no further qualification as to what is the specific extent of the service area i.e. from which house to which house of said Guda Sahi and Mahanta Sahi, it is obviously not open to the authorities to make further specification after publication of the advertisement. Under such Page 6 of 10 circumstances, this Court fails to understand as to how the area specified in the advertisement could have been substituted by the so called area specified by the joint survey report. 7. As regards the joint survey report, this Court finds that in the survey register the house number of the petitioner has been mentioned as 87. The voter list also mentions her house number as 87. As against this, a document has been enclosed to the counter affidavit at Annexure-A/4 showing the house number of the petitioner as 108. Significantly, said document has been prepared by Nandini Nayak (opposite party No.5) in her capacity as Anganwadi Helper of the main Center. It bears the signature of CDPO also but fact remains that the author of the document is herself a candidate. Therefore, in order to maintain transparency the survey should have been conducted by an independent person. The document enclosed to the counter as Annexure-B/4 simply shows the area as house no.1 to house no. 104 but then the same does Page 7 of 10 not appear to have any correlation to the area specified in the advertisement. 8. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the ADM has not taken pain to consider all these aspects in detail. On the contrary after recording the rival contentions advanced before him, the ADM has disposed of the matter in the following words. “On the aforesaid statement of both the Appellant and Respondent along with the para wise comments of CDPO, Saharpada verified all the documents submitted by them. Finally, the fact is being observed by me and comes to conclusion that, all the selection process done by the selection committee is as per Revised Guideline letter No. 145/SWCD Dt.02.05.2007 of Commissioner-cum- Secretary, W & CD Deptt.” 9. It is quite evident that the ADM has not cited any reason whatsoever for accepting the selection process as correct without in the least delving into the specific points of dispute. Furthermore, the question whether any preference for engagement could be given to opposite party No.5 on the ground of her being a Helper of a different Anganwadi Center has also not been answered. It goes without saying Page 8 of 10 that in the absence of any reasons, the order passed by a quasi-judicial authority becomes vulnerable. 10. It is well settled that reason being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the authority can only be said to have discharged its duty in a meaningful manner by furnishing the same expressly. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor1 the Supreme Court held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. 1 AIR 1974 SC 87 Page 9 of 10 Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh2. 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not disposed of by the ADM properly for which, the impugned order is rendered unsustainable and warrants interference. 12. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted to the ADM, Keonjhar for hearing the appeal afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned and by specifically answering the contentions raised by the parties by citing proper reasons. The exercise should be completed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 7th August, 2024/ A.K. Rana, P.A. 2 AIR 1981 SC 1915 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Aug-2024 10:38:12 Page 10 of 10