The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 19439 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Rasmirani Dora ...… Petitioner --------------- -Versus- ADM, Nayagarh & Others .... Opposite Parties _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. L.K.Mohanty, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for State _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 16th May, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. An advertisement was published by opposite party no.3 on 07.01.2011 for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of different Anganwadi Centres including Dalak Gha Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner was one of the applicants. One Ranjita Nayak having applied was Page 1 of 12 selected and issued with order of engagement dated 26.09.2011. The petitioner questioned the correctness of her selection and engagement by filing appeal before the ADM being registered as AWW appeal No. 14 of 2011. Another candidate namely, Sandhyarani Mishra also filed an appeal against such selection and engagement of Ranjita Nayak, which was registered as AW Appeal No. 15 of 2011. Both appeals were heard together and by order dated 11.01.2017, the ADM found that said Ranjita Nayak not being a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question had been wrongly selected. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the selection committee to consider afresh, keeping in mind that Ranjita Nayak was not resident of the Anganwadi Centre at the time of selection. Said Ranjita Nayak
Legal Reasoning
challenged the order of the ADM before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 11048 of 2017. By judgment passed on 07.07.2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ADM and directed compliance of the same within three months. It is stated that said Ranjita Nayak further Page 2 of 12 carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench being registered as W.A. No. 1808 of 2023 but by order dated 27.03.2024, said appeal was also dismissed. Despite
Decision
dismissal of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal, no action was taken by the concerned authorities to comply with the order passed by the ADM, for which the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 16413 of 2024 with a prayer to direct the authorities to issue order of engagement in her favour as she has secured the next highest marks. By order dated 11.07.2024, this Court disposed of the writ application directing the Sub- Collector, Nayagarh to take expedient steps to implement the direction of the ADM in his order dated 11.01.2017 within two months. The concerned authorities however, instead of complying with the order of the ADM issued fresh advertisement on 01.08.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has again approached this Court in the present writ application seeking the following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why:- Page 3 of 12 dated taking 1.8.2024 i) A direction shall not be issued to quash the Advertisement into consideration the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 11.7.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 16413/2024 under Annexure-6 and why a direction shall not be issued to the opp. Parties to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner Anganwadi Worker as per the selection as pursuant to advertisement dated 7.1.2011 under Annexure-1 taking into consideration the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 11408 of 2017 dated 7.7.2023 under Annexure-4 as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.A. No. 1808 of 2023 dated 27.3.2024; ii)And after hearing the parties this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the advertisement dated 1.8.2024 issued Opp.Party No.3 under Annexure-8 and direct the Opp. Parties to issue order of engagement in favour of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Dalak-Gha Anganwadi Center of Odagaon Block in the district of Nayagarh taking into consideration the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 11.7.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 16413/2024 under Annexure-6 as well as the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 27.3.2024 passed in W.A. No, 1808/2023; within a date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; any iii) direction/directions as deemed fit and proper, order/orders, other pass Any And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray” 2. The stand of the Opposite Parties as per the affidavit filed by the CDPO, Odagaon is that the petitioner stood in the second position in the selection but on perusal of the selection file, it was revealed that 12 candidates had applied in total including the petitioner and said Ranjita Nayak. The applications of 11 candidates were rejected on different grounds and only the case of Ranjita Nayak was considered. Since the remaining candidates are not eligible, it has been decided to go for fresh selection after passing of the order of the appellate authority. Moreover, Page 4 of 12 there is no order of this Court to give appointment to the petitioner. 3. In the rejoinder and additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the challenge to the selection of Ranjita Nayak was on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center in question. The petitioner has been pursuing the litigation since 2011 and therefore, issuing a fresh advertisement at this stage would frustrate her entire efforts. It is further stated that from the evaluation sheet prepared by the selection committee of all the candidates, it is seen that the petitioner’s application was rejected on the ground that her name in the H.S.C. certificate does not tally with the marksheet. The authorities however, had not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised H.S.C. certificate after correction of her name by the Board of Secondary Education on 15.09.2003 which is endorsed on the reverse of the said certificate. As such, the so-called rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is illegal. Page 5 of 12 4. Heard Mr. L.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 5. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the decision to publish a fresh advertisement amounts to overreaching the order of this Court passed by the coordinate Bench as confirmed by the Division Bench as also of the appellate authority, which is therefore, illegal. Secondly, the petitioner had questioned the selection and engagement of Ranjita Nayak in the appeal which was allowed. The petitioner’s appeal was never objected to by the authorities on the ground that her candidature had been rejected. Even otherwise, the ground of rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is not tenable in view of the fact that the so called mismatch of her name in the H.S.C. certificate and marksheet was duly rectified by the Board of Secondary Education. Mr. Mohanty further argues that the issuance of fresh advertisement has the effect of nullifying the entire effort of the petitioner undertaken since 2011. Page 6 of 12 6. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA would argue that the candidature, selection and engagement of Ranjita Nayak was held to be illegal by the appellate authority on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area. The petitioner never brought the fact of rejection of her candidature by the selection committee before the appellate authority. Moreover, the order passed by the appellate authority was confirmed by this Court but neither there was any direction by the appellate authority nor this Court to engage the petitioner. Since her candidature had already been rejected there was no other option than to publish fresh advertisement in order to comply with the direction of the appellate authority. 7. The facts of the case, as discussed, lie in a narrow compass. It goes without saying that the order of the ADM in so far as it relates to setting aside the engagement of the selected candidate Ranjita Nayak was confirmed by this Court as per the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench and confirmed by the division Bench. It would be useful at this stage to refer to the Page 7 of 12 specific direction of the ADM in his order dated 11.01.2017 which is reproduced herein below: road extends “Having heard both the parties to the dispute and going through the evidence on record. I am of the opinion that the college from Raghunath Samabaya Mahavidyalaya, Odagaon to Police Station Odagaon. The residences located on either side of the aforesaid road are called the residence of college road. Different Sahis have originated from college road and extended in different direction away from the college road. It is seen that in between Gouda Sahi and Nityananda Sahi there is another Sahi called Gupta Matha Sahi. So Nityananda Sahi is neither close to Gouda Sahi nor within the college road. The residence of Respondent No.5 is in Nityananda Sahi which does not come under the service area of Dalak "Gha" AWC. Relaing on the report of Tahasildar, Odagaon addressed to the sub Collector, Nayagarh one can clearly come to a conclusion that the Respondent No.5 is not the residence of Dalak "Gha" AWC area. In the result the prayer of the Appellant is accepted. Engagement of Respondent No.5 as the AWW of Dalak Gha AWC is set aside. The matter is reminded to the Selection Committee to dispose of the matter afresh keeping in mind the findings that Respondent No.5 was not a residence of Dalak Gha AWC area at the time of her selection as a AWW. The report of the R.1 Odagaon at the back site of the Misc. Certificate is neither acceptable not reliable on the ground that a Mise Certificate is prepaired and issued on the basis of the report submitted by the R.I or any other official detailed by the Tahasildar. Here report has been recorded on the back of the certificate which has already been issued” Plainly understood, the above direction was for deciding the matter afresh keeping aside the candidature of Ranjita Nayak. Though the CDPO, also participated in hearing of the appeal being present, the fact of so-called rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground of mis-match of her name in H.S.C. certificate and marksheet was never brought to the notice of the appellate authority. In fact, the same was also not Page 8 of 12 brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench during hearing of the earlier writ application (W.P(C) No. 11408 of 2017). As such, the coordinate Bench issued the following direction; “Having heard the learned counsel for the Parties at length and going through the evidence on record and after perusing the documents annexed herewith and also going through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Opposite Party No.5/ Additional District Magistrate, Nayagarh does not suffer from any error so as to warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the impugned order dated 11.01.2017 under Annexure-5 passed by the Opposite Party No.5/ Additional District Magistrate, Nayagarh in A.W. Appeal Nos.14 and 15 of 2011 be complied with within a period of three months from today. ” It is common ground that the above order was confirmed in writ appeal. While the matter stood thus, the CDPO by way of an affidavit filed on 19.09.2024 for the first time came up with the stand that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Reference to the evaluation sheet of all the candidates, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-A/3 to the affidavit filed by the CDPO, reveals that in the remarks column against the name of the petitioner the following has been mentioned. “H.S.C. name and Marksheet not tally” At the bottom of the table, it is mentioned that total application was 12 out of which 11 were rejected and Page 9 of 12 only 1 was found valid. Obviously, this aspect was never brought on record by any of the parties at any point of time. Be that as it may, it is seen that the petitioner has enclosed her H.S.C. Certificate as well the Marksheet to the additional affidavit filed by her, which contains an endorsement on its reverse to the effect that it was issued after correction. It is contended that the above fact was never considered by the selection committee. It is admitted that the petitioner stood in the second position among all the candidates in the selection list. So, if at all the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the grounds cited without taking note of the fact that the mismatch had been rectified by correction of the certificate, the same should not stand on the way of consideration of her candidature. It would not be proper to reject her candidature on such hyper-technical ground. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party authorities to bring to the notice of the appellate authority as well as this Court in the earlier writ application, the fact of rejection of the petitioner’s candidature. Page 10 of 12 8. Thus from a conceptus of the analysis made above, this Court is of the considered view that in order to give effect to the direction of the appellate authority as well as of this Court, it would be proper for the selection committee to consider the matter afresh, particularly, the contention of the petitioner that the fact of correction of her certificate had been overlooked. If the selection committee is satisfied that the so-called mismatch in the name had actually been rectified but was somehow overlooked at the relevant time, there should be no further impediment in considering the candidature of the petitioner and if found to be otherwise suitable, to engage her. 9. The writ application is therefore, allowed. The impugned advertisement is hereby quashed. The selection committee is directed to reconsider the matter and if satisfied that the mismatch in the name of the petitioner in her certificates was duly rectified by the relevant time then order of engagement shall be issued in her favour without any further delay and in any case, Page 11 of 12 not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 16-May-2025 15:27:39 Page 12 of 12