Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- Sandhyarani Parida … v. State of Orissa and others
Case Details
‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17147 of 2018 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- Sandhyarani Parida …… Petitioner - Versus - State of Orissa and others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. Mohapatra For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Patnaik [Addl. Government Advocate] M/s. R. Achary, T. Barik N. Barik, S. Hidaytullah A. Pati & S.R. Ojha, Advocates (for O.P. No. 4) ____________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25.04.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The order passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (ADM), Puri on 12.09.2018 in Anganwadi Appeal No. 11 of 2016 is impugned in the present case. Page 1 of 8 2. On 22.06.2016, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for Motari Gram Panchayat in the district of Puri. The petitioner submitted her application. Since she had married a person of the village on 04.05.2016, she applied for residential certificate, which she received on 11.07.2016. She submitted the same before the selection committee on the date of verification itself, i.e., on 12.07.2016. The selection committee found her most meritorious and accordingly selected. The petitioner was thereafter engaged. 3. The private opposite party No. 4 filed the afore- mentioned appeal questioning selection of the petitioner on the ground that her application was incomplete and that even though the advertisement mentioned 08.07.2016 as date of verification, same was deferred to 12.07.2016. The petitioner had not submitted residence certificate along with her application but submitted it beyond the cut-off date which was erroneously accepted and she was selected. 4. The ADM, after considering the rival contentions and the materials on record, found that 06.07.2016, Page 2 of 8 07.07.2016, 09.07.2016 and 10.07.2016 being government holidays, the date of scrutiny should have been fixed to 08.07.2016, which was a working day and that deferment of the date to 12.07.2016 is contrary to the guidelines. The ADM also found that the petitioner had not submitted her residence certificate along with her application but submitted the same on 12.07.2016. On such finding, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker. 5. Stand of the State-opposite party is that as per the guidelines, 15 days’ time is to be granted to the candidates to submit their applications. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted undertaking in lieu of the residence certificate. As such, her application was incomplete. The guidelines further provide that if the 16th day falls on a holiday, then verification of the applications would be done on the next working day. In the instant case, two working dates, i.e., 08.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 were skipped by the selection committee. Extension of the date to 12.07.2016 is thus contrary to guidelines and therefore, rightly held so by the ADM. Page 3 of 8 6. Stand of the private opposite party (opposite party No. 4) is more or less the same as the State authorities. It is reiterated that the advertisement itself mentioned 08.07.2016 as the date of verification of the applications, which was a working day and hence, the date could not have been extended to 12.07.2016. 7.
Legal Reasoning
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Miniati Nayak vs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P(C) No. 16157 of 2022) in support of her contention. 9. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would argue that the advertisement clearly mentioned that the date of scrutiny was 08.07.2016, which admittedly was a working day. There was thus no occasion to defer the date to 12.07.2016. Further, the petitioner had admittedly not submitted her residence certificate, which makes her application incomplete and thereby liable for rejection. Her subsequent submission of a residence certificate cannot be considered and therefore her selection was rightly interfered with by the appellate authority. 10. Mr. Achary, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party makes similar argument as the State Counsel and submits that the authorities cannot go beyond the guidelines framed by them. If the guidelines do not confer power on the selection committee to defer the date, doing so would amount to gross illegality. Page 5 of 8 11. From the facts narrated, it is evident that the petitioner had not submitted her residence certificate along with her application. The last date for submission of applications was 07.07.2016 and 08.07.2016 was fixed for scrutiny of the applications received. It is not disputed that 06.07.2016 and 07.07.2016 were holidays. Therefore, the last date of receipt of applications would be automatically extended to the next working day, i.e., 08.07.2016. The guidelines dated 02.05.2007 provide that the date of scrutiny would be the 16th day from the date of application. In the instant case the date being originally 07.07.2016, would be extended to the next working day because of extension of the last date of receipt of applications to 08.07.2016. It is not disputed that the next working day was 11.07.2016. The petitioner submitted an undertaking to the effect that she had applied for the residence certificate and would produce the same upon its receipt. 12. Learned State Counsel has produced the extract from the relevant file, which reveals that a note was put up before the Sub-Collector stating that the 16th day falls on Page 6 of 8 07.07.2016, which is a holiday. Approval was sought for fixing another suitable date, the Sub-Collector fixed 12.07.2016 as the date of scrutiny. Nothing is mentioned in the order as to why 11.07.2016, though a working day, was skipped. It is the settled position of law that unless permitted by the statute, the authority has to power to defer the date fixed in the guidelines for scrutiny of applications. This being a basic proposition does not require any authority in support. In fact, the ADM himself has referred to the relevant judgment in his order. 13. Thus, two things emerge from the above analysis- one, the petitioner’s application was incomplete in the absence of a residence certificate, which as per the advertisement ought not to have been considered and second, the residence certificate belatedly submitted by her was accepted beyond the stipulated date, which is contrary to the guidelines. Thus, viewed from whatever angle, the selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 14. The judgment cited by Ms. Mohapatra can be distinguished on facts inasmuch as it was a case where the Page 7 of 8 petitioner had applied for residence certificate but the same had not been issued to her before the cut-off date. In any case, she submitted the certificate on the date of scrutiny itself, which was the 16th day. The date of scrutiny was not deferred in that case. 15. From a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law hereinbefore, this Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned order so as to be persuaded to interfere therewith.
Arguments
Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. R. Achary, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.4. 8. According to Ms. Mohapatra, it is the settled position of law that if the concerned date falls on a holiday, the next working day is to be considered. In the instant case, the 16th day fell on a holiday and because of absence of the Sub-Collector on the next working day, the date was deferred. The petitioner is admittedly a resident of the service area of the anganwadi center and she was found to be the most meritorious in the selection process. As such, her selection should not be interfered with by adopting a hyper- technical approach. Mr. Mohapatra has relied upon a Page 4 of 8
Decision
Resultantly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of merit for which, the same is dismissed. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 25th April, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2025 11:49:47 Page 8 of 8