The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20084 of 2024 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Satyabhama Prusty … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Bishnu Prasad Rath, Advocate. Mr. A.K.Ray, Advocate -versus- For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 6 : Mr. S.S.Routray, A.S.C. For Opposite Party : Mr. B.K.Routray, Advocate No.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 11.3.2025. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 1 of 11 Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition assails the order dtd.24.7.2024 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur, in A.W.W. Misc. Appeal No.22/2015-05/2023 whereby the order of her engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Centre was set aside. 2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to notification issued by the C.D.P.O., Danagadi on 04.1.2024, the Petitioner, Opp. Party No.7 and other candidates applied for selection as Anganwadi Worker of Binapani Sahi Anganwadi Centre under Nachhipura Gram Panchayat. Two candidates namely, Nirupama Nayak and Lipika Panda were found ineligible. After considering the relative merit, the Selection Committee selected the Petitioner. Accordingly, letter of engagement was issued in her favour on 24.4.2015 pursuant to which she joined and started working as
Legal Reasoning
such. The Opp. Party No.7 challenged the appointment of the Petitioner in the aforementioned appeal before the A.D.M. By order dated 13.7.2016, the A.D.M., W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 2 of 11 having found certain incongruities in the residence certificate produced by the Opp.Party No.7 directed the Tahasildar, Danagadi to review the said certificate and to submit a report for taking further verification of the selection process. Said order was challenged by Opp.Party No.7 before this Court in W.P.(C). No.22827/2016. After considering all the relevant facts, a coordinate Bench of this Court, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the A.D.M., Jajpur for hearing afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. Pursuant to such order, the appeal was heard afresh by A.D.M. and culminated in passing of the impugned order. While disposing of the appeal, the A.D.M. observed that the Petitioner secured 45% mark and is entitled to 5% extra mark for higher qualification. As such, her total marks should be 50%. According to the Petitioner, the A.D.M. committed error in holding that she had never filed any representation towards her experience. She applied for the details of her application along with annexures under the R.T.I. Act from which it was W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 3 of 11 clearly revealed that she had filed all required documents along with the experience certificate. As such, her total percentage comes to 55%, being 45% in Matriculation, 5% for Higher Education and 5% for experience. This makes her the candidate with highest marks, but the A.D.M. wrongly held that the calculation of weightage was not correct. 3. The State has not filed any counter though the State counsel made oral submissions. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the private Opposite Party No.7. It is stated that the Petitioner falsely claimed that she has the required experience. As per the advertisement, 5% marks is to be added for Experience in Sarba Sikhya Abhijan (ECCE), which the Petitioner does not possess. She was also wrongly awarded extra marks for her Matriculation examination which she did not inform authorities. That apart, the Petitioner does not belong to the Centre area whereas the Opp.Party No.7 is a resident of the said area. W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 4 of 11 5. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder. It is stated that the experience certificate submitted by the Petitioner cannot be treated as a fabricated document unless it is declared null and void by the competent Court or authority. The Petitioner is a resident of the service area and secured the highest marks for which she was rightly selected. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B.P.Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. B.K. Routray, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.7. 7. Mr. Rath would argue that the Petitioner admittedly secured 45% in the Matriculation examination and is entitled to 5% extra marks for passing higher qualification i.e. +2. Further, she was working as an Instructor, NFC from 17.9.1995 to 31.3.2001 under the Non-Formal Scheme. As such, she is entitled to 5% more marks towards experience. As regards residence, Mr. Rath would argue that both the Petitioner as well as the private Opposite Party belong to Nachhipura revenue village though under W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 5 of 11 different hamlets. It is the settled position of law that different hamlets will be treated as the same revenue village. Binapani Sahi Anganwangadi Centre comes under the revenue village of Nachhipura. On the contrary, the residential certificate produced by the private Opp. Party is not genuine as the concerned case being Misc. Case No.7801/2013 relates to one income certificate issued in favour of one Rabindra Behera. According to Mr. Rath, these vital aspects has not been taken into consideration by the A.D.M. 8. Mr. S.S.Routray, learned State counsel, intending to justify the impugned order would argue that the methodology adopted by the selection committee was found to be erroneous for which the A.D.M. rightly set aside the order of engagement issued in favour of the Petitioner and directed to prepare the merit list by properly calculating the weightage of marks afresh in respect of each applicant. According to Mr. Routray, the impugned order does not call for any interference whatsoever. W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 6 of 11 9. Mr. B.K.Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.7 would argue that the selection committee took the total marks of the Petitioner as 600 instead of 700. The Petitioner had secured 318 marks out of 700, which is 45%. Adding 5% extra for her higher qualification, her total percentage would be 50% but she was awarded 58%. On the other hand, the Opp. Party No.7 secured 396 marks out of 750 in her Matriculation examination which is 52.8%. This makes her the candidate with highest marks for which she ought to have been selected. Mr. Routray further submits that extra marks for experience is to be granted only in case of ECCE volunteers. The Petitioner was not such a volunteer and therefore, not entitled to extra marks. 10. It is seen that the selection and engagement of the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker was questioned by the Opposite Party No.7 in the appeal before the A.D.M. mainly on the ground that she is not a resident of the service area of the Centre and that the selection committee wrongly calculated the marks. It is stated W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 7 of 11 that the Petitioner passed H.S.C. examination in the year 1989 and at that time, the total marks were 700 but the Selection Committee wrongly considered the same as 600 for which her percentage was enhanced. Had the correct procedure been adopted, the Petitioner would have secured only 50% marks, but she was awarded 58% marks. 11. There are thus, two main objections raised against engagement of the Petitioner namely, wrong calculation of marks and regarding her residence. No material has been placed before this Court to show the methodology adopted by the Selection Committee. How the percentage of marks was calculated is not on record. Whether the total marks of the Petitioner were treated as 600 or 700 is not forthcoming from the record. Be that as it may, the A.D.M. has observed that the Selection Committee has wrongly calculated the full marks of H.S.C. examination. If that be so, the direction to prepare fresh merit list by properly calculating the weightage of marks afresh in respect of each applicant can hardly be faulted with. W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 8 of 11 12. As regards the question of grant of 5% extra marks towards experience, it is stated in the impugned order that the Petitioner had not submitted the experience certificate but from the documents enclosed under Annexure-6 series, which were obtained by the Petitioner under the R.T.I. Act, there is an experience certificate of the Petitioner of having worked as Instructor under the Non-Formal Scheme. Whether this would qualify as experience as contemplated under the advertisement, is a different matter and needs consideration. But fact remains that she having submitted such a certificate along with her application, the observation to the contrary of the A.D.M. appears to be factually incorrect. 13. As regards the question of residence, there is clear finding of the A.D.M. that the residential certificate produced by the private Opp.Party contains certain incongruities but he choose to rely upon the report of the Tahasildar, Danagadi to hold that she was residing in the said Anganwadi area prior to the notification. W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 9 of 11 14. All these matters need further verification by the concerned authorities. Since the A.D.M. has relegated the matter to the selection committee, this Court, for the reasons indicated, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. If any mistake was committed while calculating the marks secured by the candidates, it ought to be rectified. Further, if there is any incongruity with regard to the residential certificate submitted by any candidate, the same also needs to be properly addressed. 15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Decision
The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Selection Committee to abide by the directions of the A.D.M. as per the impugned order as also to take note of the contentions of the parties not only with regard to the methodology of the calculation of marks but also as regards their residence and experience, if any. The Selection Committee shall do well to conclude the process as early as possible preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 10 of 11 copy of this order. Till such time, the Petitioner, if found to be working as Anganwadi Worker of Binapani Sahi Centre, shall be allowed to continue as such. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: authentication Location: High Court Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Mar-2025 12:11:16 W.P.(C) No. 20084 of 2024 Page 11 of 11