The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) A.F.R. Gandharbi Pathrimali @ Manjulata Budek … Petitioner -versus- Collector, Balangir & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Trilochan Nanda, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. A.R.Dash, A.G.A For Opposite Party No.5: Mr. M.R. Samantaray --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 20.6.2024. W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 1 of 8 Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;
Decision
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the writ petition, admit the same, issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause:- (i) Why the order dtd.22.04.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Balangir in AWW Appeal No.07 of 2011 shall not be quashed. (ii) Why the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue as Anganwadi Worker of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi center in the district of Balangir. If the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule may kindly be made absolute. pass order/orders, And/or direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper; other any And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 24.7.2009 by the C.D.P.O., Belpada in the district of Bolangir (Opposite Party No.4) for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in different Anganwadi Centres, the Petitioner submitted her application for the Anganwadi Centre at Dhumabhata-4. The present Opposite Party No.5 (Sangeeta Budek) was also one of the applicants. The W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 2 of 8 Selection Committee found the Petitioner most suitable among all candidates and accordingly she was selected for engagement. Pursuant to such selection, the Petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker and joined as such on 31.3.2011. The present Opposite Party No.5 filed an appeal being A.W.W. Appeal No.7/2011 before the A.D.M., Bolangir challenging the selection and engagement of the Petitioner on the ground that she is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner contested the appeal. The A.D.M. as per order dated 22.4.2015, basing on the report of the Tahasildar, Belpada, held that the Petitioner being a resident of Mandirpada of village Dhumabhata is not a resident within the service area of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre. As such the appeal was allowed and the engagement of the Petitioner was set aside. The Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order of the A.D.M., copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1. W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 3 of 8 3. Heard Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. There is no appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.5 despite repeated calls. 4. Mr. Nanda would argue that Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre is comprised of as many as 7 ‘Padas’ including Ranapada of which the Petitioner is a permanent resident. In course of the selection process also, her name was found in the Voter List of said Ward and also in the Survey Register. Moreover, she secured the highest marks. Thus, taking into consideration all the above facts, the Petitioner was rightly selected. The A.D.M. has himself accepted that as per the Survey Register the Petitioner is a resident of Ranapada which comes within the service area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. However, basing on a purported inquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, it was erroneously held that she is a resident of W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 4 of 8 Mandirpada coming under Dhumabhata-1 Anganwadi Centre. 5. Mr.A.R.Dash, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, would argue that as per the guidelines, an applicant has to be permanent resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. In the instant case, the Tahasildar, Belpada, conducted an inquiry, which revealed that the Petitioner is a resident of a different service area and therefore, the ADM has rightly set aside her selection as Anganwadi Worker. 6. Reading of the impugned order shows that Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre includes 7 Padas namely, Katakiapada, Mallikpada, Ranapada, Malipada, Baidpada, Pathanpada and Luhurapada. Nine candidates had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker. An objection being filed by the present Opposite Party No.5 before the Selection Committee, a meeting was conducted on 15.3.2011 in presence of S.S.W.O., Patnagarh, Sarpanch, Ward Member and villagers to enquire into the mater. The Survey Register W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 5 of 8 of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre of survey conducted in the year 2011 shows that the name of the Petitioner is at Sl. No.171. This, prima facie, shows that the Petitioner is a resident of the service area of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre. The A.D.M. however, has held that such survey was conducted during the year, 2011 after selection of the Anganwadi Worker. Nothing further has been stated as regards the date of conduct of such survey. Further, the Tahasildar, Belpada, appears to have submitted an inquiry report. Copy of such inquiry report has not been filed by either of the parties. In the said inquiry report, it is stated that the Petitioner is a resident of Mandirpada of village Dhumabhata, which comes under another Anganwadi Centre, i.e. Anganwadi Centre No.1. There is no definite material to show that the Petitioner was not a resident of Ranapada in the year 2011. The impugned order does not also specifically mention that she was not a resident of Ranapada at the time of selection. It is only during pendency of the appeal that the Tahasildar, Belpada, W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 6 of 8 conducted an inquiry, which purportedly revealed that she is a resident of the service area of another Anganwadi Centre. Unless there is definite and clear-cut evidence to show that the Petitioner is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question, her engagement as Anganwadi Worker cannot ordinarily be questioned. Even accepting the inquiry report of the Tahasildar for a moment, it only raises the possibility that the Petitioner may have shifted her residence to Mandirpada after her selection. If such is the case, it would give rise to a different cause of action for the concerned authorities to proceed against her, but under no circumstances her initial selection and engagement can be questioned. This is being said for all the more reason as it is not the case of Opposite Party No.5 that the petitioner is a resident of Mandirpada and not Ranapada. This Court further observes that the Petitioner has been working as Anganwadi Worker ever since the date of engagement on the strength of order passed by this Court. W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 7 of 8 7. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts and discussion made hereinbefore, this Court finds that the finding of the A.D.M. regarding the residential status of the Petitioner is not based on definite evidence or material so as to justify setting aside her selection and engagement. As such, the impugned order is rendered unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.4.2015 passed by the A.D.M., Balangir, in A.W.W. Appeal No.7/2011 under Annexure-1 is hereby set aside. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jun-2024 18:38:15 W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015 Page 8 of 8