Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Surekha Prabha Takri … v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 19978 of 2024 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Surekha Prabha Takri …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. Bijay Kumar Mohanty & J. Pradhan, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate
Legal Reasoning
M/s. Mr. Deepak Kumar Parida, Chandra Lenka Ray, Bichitra Narayana Satapathy, Advocates. [ For O.P. No.5] _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 30th November, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this application with the following prayer. “It is humbly therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court issue writ/writs, may graciously be pleased to order/orders, direction/directions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and more particularly to issue.6 Page 1 of 9 (i) writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the order dated 05.11.2022 vide Annexure 7 passed by the ADM, Nabarangpur (opp. party No. 2) in RMC (AWW) Appeal Case No. 14 of 2022 as illegal and arbitrary. (ii) directing the opp. party No. 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner as an Angnawadi Worker in Kansariguda Anganwadi Centre in place of the opp. party No. 5 who is not belonging to the permanent resident of the said centre and who belongs to permanent resident of "NUAGUDA" which is more than 3 km distance far away from the Anganwadi Centre. (iii) make a direction of the Hon’ble Court objection has been made on 06.06.2021 before the opp. party No. 3 intentionally it has not been considered and rejected the application as unjust and improper in the eye of law. And may further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 31.05.2021 for filling up the post of Anganwadi worker in Kansariguda Anganwadi Centre in the district of Nabarangpur, the petitioner submitted her application. She claims to be a resident of Kansariguda and accordingly, produced the residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Tentulikhunti to such effect along with her application. On the other hand, the private opposite party No.5, Subhadra Banua is a permanent resident of Nuagada, which is at a distance of 3 Kms from the Anganwadi Centre of Page 2 of 9 Kansariguda. As such, as per the advertisement, first preference should have been given to the petitioner. However, the authorities selected the private opposite party No.5 as Anganwadi Worker ignoring the candidature of the petitioner. The opposite party No.5 was engaged by order dated 21.12.2021 of the C.D.P.O., Tentulikhunti and joined as such. The petitioner thereafter met the Sub-Collector, Nabarangpur and C.D.P.O., Tentulikhunti time and again to ascertain as to why her application was rejected, but there was no response. Ultimately, she submitted an application for information under the RTI Act on 31.03.2022 to the C.D.P.O., ICDS Project, Tentulikhunti. In response to such application, it was intimated by the authority that her application has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of residential certificate and date of birth proof. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate (ADM), Nabarangpur being RMC (AWW) Appeal Case No.14/2022. The ADM disposed of the appeal entirely on the basis of the report submitted by the CDPO but without conducting any inquiry as regards the facts. The appeal was Page 3 of 9 thus rejected. The said order passed by the ADM is impugned in the present writ application. 3. Pursuant to notice, all the opposite parties have entered appearance but no counter has been filed as they preferred to make oral arguments. 4. Heard Sri B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State; and Sri D.K. Parida, learned counsel for the private opposite party No.5. 5. Sri Mohanty would argue that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law as it does not spell out the reasons as to why the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The ADM without enquiring into the matter himself entirely relied upon the report of the CDPO and on such basis rejected the appeal, which is not conscionable in the eye of law. 6. Learned State Counsel, Sri Pattnaik would argue that the ADM found from the report of the CDPO that the petitioner had not submitted the residence and age proof along with her application, which is a mandatory requirement as per Page 4 of 9 the advertisement as also the guidelines. As such, her application itself was not in order for which it was rightly rejected. Such being the factual position, the ADM rightly dismissed the appeal. 7. Sri D.K. Parida, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party, while making similar arguments as the State Counsel further submits that his client possessed the requisite qualification and also secured more marks than the petitioner in this selection. The petitioner, on the other hand did not submit a valid application as it was not accompanied by the proof of residence and age. It was therefore, rightly rejected as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Such being the case, the ADM rightly did not find any reason to interfere with the selection of the private opposite party No.5. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials on record particularly, the order impugned, this Court finds that the ADM granted opportunity of hearing to all parties, but then much emphasis appears to have been laid upon the para-wise report submitted by the Page 5 of 9 CDPO, Tentulikhunti. As per the said report, the petitioner did not submit a residence certificate in support of her claim of being a resident of village, Kansariguda, whereas the caste certificate submitted by her indicated that she belongs to Jamunda Village of Koraput District. She did not submit a fresh caste certificate as required. She also did not submit her date of birth proof. Therefore, her application was rightly rejected on 07.06.2021. 9. After reproducing the para-wise comments submitted by the CDPO in the impugned order, the ADM held as follows: “Perused the application copy of the Anganwadi Worker Registration Application downloaded from the portal and submitted by the CDPO, Tentulikhunti, wherein it has clearly mentioned that no resident certificate has been attached, no date of birth proof has been attached in proper column. In view of the elaborate discussions made supra and as per the report of the C.D.P.O., Tentulikhunti and after verifying the relevant documents, I am not convinced with the prayer of the Petitioner. The Appeal Petition is liable to be rejected so it is rejected.’’ It is more than evident from a bare reading of the above order that the ADM has not really applied his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner, the private opposite party and Page 6 of 9 the parawise comments submitted by the CDPO, the ADM could have at least called for the original file to ascertain whether the petitioner had, in fact, submitted the required certificates along with her application or not. This is the least the ADM could have done under the circumstances. 10. It is trite law that the appellate authority should make efforts to verify the relevant facts and not simply rely upon the version of one of the parties. No doubt the CDPO had submitted para-wise comments stating therein that the petitioner had not attached the required certificates but then, in view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner that she had done so, it was incumbent upon the ADM to have called for the original file to derive subjective satisfaction that the certificate had been submitted or not submitted. It is only upon such subjective satisfaction that the final order in the appeal could have been passed. Such an exercise not having been done, the impugned order becomes vulnerable to challenge. It is also well settled that the citing of reasons is sine qua non in any finding by a quasi-judicial authority. In fact it is considered Page 7 of 9 to be the soul of an order. An order sans reason cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. For all the above reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal was not adjudicated properly by the ADM. The ADM appears to have relied upon the copy of the Anganwadi Worker registration application downloaded from the portal and submitted by the CDPO, but then the file maintained in the office could have thrown greater light on the issue. 12. In such view of the matter, this Court holds that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. For the foregoing regions therefore, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh by calling for the original records from the concerned authority and to be subjectively satisfied as regards the rival pleas taken by the parties and to pass a reasoned order basing thereon. The ADM shall dispose of the appeal as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of submission of certified copy Page 8 of 9 of this order by the petitioner after granting proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 30th November, 2024/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 02-Dec-2024 18:57:16 Page 9 of 9