The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 17284 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Jharana Mallik @ Malik ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... _____________________________________________ Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.Dash, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA P.K.Panda, Advocate (O.P No.6) _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 31st October, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in this writ application seeks to challenge the advertisement dated 05.07.2024 issued by the CDPO, Korei Block in the district of Jajpur for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Muslimsahi Anganwadi Centre in Goleipur Village. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass: Page 1 of 13 Originally, an advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Korei on 12.05.2017 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in 10 Anganwadi Centres including Muslimsahi Anganwadi Centre of Kelagadia in Goleipur village. Four candidates including the present petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 applied pursuant to the said advertisement. The selection committee fixed 07.06.2017 as the date of scrutiny of applications and verification of original documents. On the scheduled date however, the scrutiny and verification could not be done and was rescheduled to 09.06.2017. Said rescheduling was done without notice to the candidates. It came to light subsequently that Opposite Party No.6 had been selected as Anganwadi
Legal Reasoning
Worker of the centre. Said selection was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 21137 of 2017, which was disposed of by order dated 09.10.2017 granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred AWW Misc. appeal Case No. 7 of 2017 before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur. Page 2 of 13 The appellate authority, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the documents and materials on record was satisfied that the selection committee had not followed due procedure of law inasmuch as the rescheduling of the date of scrutiny and verification was done without notice to the other candidates. The appeal was thus allowed by cancelling the selection of Opposite Party No.6 with a direction for fresh selection of Anganwadi Worker. The present Opposite Party No.6 challenged the aforesaid order of the appellate authority before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 6704 of 2018. By judgment dated 08.02.2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court, being satisfied that the date of deferment of scrutiny of applications had not been published, held that the entire process of selection is vitiated as other candidates did not have a chance to apply. As such, the order of the appellate authority was not interfered with. The CDPO thereafter published a fresh advertisement on 05.07.2024 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers of 3 Anganwadi Centres including Muslimsahi Anganwadi Page 3 of 13 Centre. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that, Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, call upon the Opp.parties to show cause or showing insufficient cause, may. further be pleased to quash the Advertisement No.464 dated 05.07.2024 vide Annexure 3 issued by the opposite party No.5 and this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased direct the Opp.party No.5 to conduct onward action of verification of document and testimonials of the candidates applied for the post of A.W. of Goleipur Muslimsahi A.W. Centre and appoint the successful candidate. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” It is contended that the selection of Opposite Party No.6 being cancelled as per order passed by the appellate authority in appeal and the direction to go for fresh selection implies that the selection process already undertaken should have been revived and taken to its logical end instead of going for fresh advertisement. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Opposite Parties. Reference has been made to the Govt. of Odisha in W & CD Department letter No. 01.10.2010 to state that there is no concept of re-engagement or engagement without selection and that if any vacancy arises out of death, non-joining, disengagement, resignation etc, fresh selection is to be made. Since the Page 4 of 13 appellate authority directed to go for fresh selection and the said order was confirmed by this Court, the CDPO rightly published the fresh advertisement. 4. Counter has also been filed by Opposite Party No.6 stating therein that the petitioner is not eligible to apply for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of the centre in question as she is not a resident of the said area, which is proved from House Survey Report that does not contain her name among the family members of her father Rabi Mallick, having House No. 102. Further by the time of publication of the advertisement dated 12.05.2017, the petitioner had been married to one Siba Jena belonging to Jajpur block but not Korei. She obtained a fake certificate and filed a false affidavit only to apply for the post.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. S.K.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr. P.K.Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.6. Page 5 of 13 6. Mr. Dash would argue that the selection process initiated pursuant to the original advertisement was found to be vitiated for non-following of proper procedure by the CDPO, inasmuch as the deferment of the date of scrutiny and verification was never intimated to the candidates. Opposite Party No.6 was somehow engaged behind the back of the other candidates. Taking note of these serious lapses, the appellate authority rightly cancelled the engagement of Opposite Party No.6. The further direction to go for fresh selection does not mean publication of a fresh advertisement but to take the original selection process to its logical end. The fresh advertisement therefore, is not in consonance with the letter and spirit of the order passed by the appellate authority as confirmed by this Court in the earlier writ application. 7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned State counsel would submit that once a vacancy arises, the same can be filled up only by undertaking a fresh selection, which means publication of a fresh advertisement giving opportunity to Page 6 of 13 all eligible candidates. Mr. Pattnaik has referred to the clarification issued by the Government vide letter dated 01.10.2010 in this regard. He further submits that since the entire selection process was found to have been vitiated, it was necessary to undertake fresh selection, which implies fresh advertisement. 8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.6 would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the fresh advertisement as she is not eligible to apply not being a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. In any case, in the previous selection, the Opposite Party No.6 was found to be the most suitable candidate and had therefore been engaged but her engagement was cancelled because of technical grounds but not for lack of merit. 9. As is evident from the foregoing narration of facts and contentions raised, the interpretation of the order passed by the appellate authority is what falls for consideration in the present writ application. The operative portion of the order passed by the appellate authority is reproduced Page 7 of 13 below. Perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority reveals that after taking note of the pleadings of the parties, he arrived at the following conclusion; a) That the CDPO, Korei had “Heard. On perusal of appeal memo, written statement of the appellant and respondent no. 1 and 4, the following facts have come to light. Issued a notification inviting applications for selection of AWWs in ten nos of anganwadi centre including this Muslimsahi centre, Goleipur. In response to that four applicants namely Gahara Ruksana Bibi, Jharana Mallick, Ms. Soyaba Begum & Ms. Binupha Begum filed application for the post. The application was invited upto 06.06.2017. The date of scrutiny was fixed to 07.06.2017. But, scrutiny was postponed to 09.06.2017, which was not duly published in the centre, as revealed from the available facts. Thereby three candidates could not attend the verification of documents’ In the CDPO office. They were shown absent. The CDPO admitted that she had personally told all the candidates present regarding defer of verification date, but she could not remember who was present and who was absent. The CDPO has further stated a copy of the notice was sent to the block office for publication. She has not stated, if copy of the notice was published in the proposed centre or not. After that three candidates of the Muslimsahi were shown absent in respect of Ruksana Bibi, verification was conducted respondent no. 1, the sole candidate. Further, it is revealed from the statement of the CDPO that on 27.06.2017, the appellant had come to her to file objection against the provisional select list published on 22.06.2017. But, Instead of receiving the objection, the CDPO stated that in the absence of the committee, the objection of document was not entertained. From the narration of the above facts, It is clear that in selection of Ruksana Bibi as anganwadi worker of Muslimsahi centre In Golipur is a predetermined fact and hence illegal for which other three candidates have been deprived of natural Justice, which is illegal and having malafide intention.
Decision
ORDER In view of the facts, discussion and circumstances stated above, this court strongly feels that the action of the CDPO and the selection committee has not been conducted in due procedure of law. This court therefore is inclined to cancel the selection of Ruksana Bibi as AWW of Goeipur Muslimsahi and order for fresh selection of anganwadi worker for the centre. The appeal is allowed.” Thus, the operating portion as quoted above has to be read in the context of the findings of the appellate Page 8 of 13 authority under paragraph 6 of the order. It is evident that the appellate authority was satisfied that deferment of the date of the scrutiny of applications and verification of documents from 07.06.2017 to 09.06.2017 was not published nor intimated to the 3 candidates except Ruksana Bibi (Opp. Party No.6). As a result, on the date of scrutiny, only Ruksana Bibi was present and verification was conducted, while the other three candidates were shown absent. Thus, finding that the other three candidates had been deprived illegally, the appellate authority held that the selection had not been conducted following due procedure of law. In such background, the selection of Ruksana Bibi was cancelled. Significantly, no direction was issued to go for fresh advertisement. Further, the coordinate Bench of this Court held as fallows in the earlier writ application: “After careful perusal of the facts and submissions, the CDPO has not caused the publication of the deferral of the date of the scrutiny of applications. On account of this, the entire process of selection stands vitiated as the other candidates did not have a chance to apply for the post of AWW. Moreover, the CDPO did not entertain the complaints of the other candidates. On account of this, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jajpur.” Page 9 of 13 Thus, what transpires is that the process of selection was held to be vitiated and was therefore interfered with by cancelling the selection of Opp. Party No.6. Learned State counsel would like to the Court to hold that this amounts to disengagement of the selected candidate, Ruksana Biwi -Opp. Party No.6 and therefore, the Government clarification vide letter dated 01.10.2010 would apply in full force. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of the clarificatory letter dated 01.10.2010, which is reproduced below: FROM Smt. Durgesh Nandini Sahoo, OAS (1) Under Secretary to Government TO Smt. Durgesh Nandini Sahoo, OAS (1) Under Secretary to Government The Additional Government Advocate. Office of the AG. Odisha, Cuttack Sub-WP (C) No 138/10 filed by Kabita Swain Vrs State of Odisha and others Sir With reference to your letter No 40959, dt. 24.09.2010 on the subject noted above I am directed to send herewith a copy of the instruction for appraisal of Hon’ble High Court and further necessary action at your end Points Sl. No. 1 What course is available In case of any vacancy arising out of death/ non- joining/disengagement/ resignation of any Anganwadi Worker 2 Why merit list is prepared if the list looses Sd/- Under Secretary to Government Instruction There is no concept of re-engagement or engagement (without of death, non joining. selection) if any vacancy arises out disengagement, resignation etc Fresh selection will be made for the concerned AWCS Revised guideline for selection of Anganwadi Worker dt. 02. 05.2007 does Page 10 of 13 it force after initial appointment/1" appointment 3 What reason is there for non-maintenance of merit list. not provide any scope for preparation of panel list of selection for future engagement Mentioned against Point No 2 4 What is the reason Mentioned against Point No 2 inviting fresh selection to fill up the casual vacancy, when one merit list is available with the authorities. XX XX XX XX XX It is evident that in case any vacancy arises due to disengagement (and other reasons), fresh selection is to be made. This Court, after taking note of the facts that led to cancellation of the selection of Opp. Party No.6 is unable to persuade itself to agree with the contention advanced by the State counsel that the same amounts to disengagement. It would rather be more reasonable to hold that the selection of Opp. Party No.6 being found to have been made in a manner contrary to the procedure was cancelled. This implies her selection was bad from the inception, that is, void ab initio and non est. This cannot be equated with the positive act of disengagement of any incumbent for whatever reason. There is a world of difference between the two scenarios. Page 11 of 13 10. This Court is of the considered view that selection process having been found to be vitiated does not ipso facto mean that the entire selection is to be cancelled. It is for such reason that the appellate authority cancelled the selection of only the selected candidate. Under such circumstances, there is no reason for the authorities to initiate a fresh selection by publishing an advertisement. It would rather be reasonable to continue with the selection process from where it stood disrupted due to non-intimation of the date of scrutiny and verification to the other three candidates. 11. As regards the contentions raised by the private Opposite Party No.6 touching upon the eligibility of the petitioner, the same being beyond the purview of the writ application cannot be considered. 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court holds that the publication of impugned advertisement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Resultantly, the writ application is allowed. The impugned advertisement dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure-3) in so far as it relates to Page 12 of 13 Muslim Sahi Anganwadi Centre is hereby quashed. The concerned authorities are directed to conclude the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.05.2017 and take it to its logical end strictly in accordance with law and the relevant guidelines of the Government. The entire process shall be completed within a period of two months from today. Deepak ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 06-Nov-2025 11:52:06 Page 13 of 13