Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Muni Khora @ v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20903 of 2024 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Muni Khora @ Mahanandia --------------- …… Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9995 of 2024 . This Court, by order dated 26.04.2024 took note of all the facts and directed the CDPO to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner before the CDPO. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below: “Challenging said order the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.276 of 2021. By order dated 22.09.2021, this Court set aside the order of the Sub- Collector and directed the petitioner to appear before him on 27.10.2021 with all connected documents and to file his show cause. It is submitted that, pursuant to such order the petitioner appeared before Sub- Collector and filed her show cause but the appeal has not been heard till date. In the meantime, basing on the earlier order passed in the appeal, the impugned order under Annexure-4 has been issued. It is submitted that in all probability, the fact of setting aside of the order passed by the Sub-Collector in the appeal was not within the concerned authority. Be that as it may, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 12.02.2024 before the CDPO, Boriguma highlighting all the relevant facts. Such representation is pending.” the knowledge of Page 3 of 7 3. Pursuant to such order, the purported selection committee constituted for selection of Anganwadi Worker under the chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Jeypore met and rejected the representation on the ground that the petitioner does not have the necessary qualification for being engaged as Angnwadi Worker. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced herein below: “In the meanwhile, the minimum educational qualification for the post of Anganwadi Worker has been changed to 12th standard in revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers vide letter No.4970 dated 15.03.2023 of W & CD Department, Odisha. In the meeting the committee allowed the petitioner to present her grievance if any in turn, the petitioners stated that she was selected by the selection committee and render her service as AWW, Marada from 01.09.18 to 16.01.2022 with utmost satisfaction of authorities. Due to cancellation of her residence certificate, she has been disengaged.” She requested before the committee to reengage her or not to go for fresh advertisement until her completion of intermediate. The committee does not find any merit in accordance with her grievance. However, the CDPO concerned is directed to intimate her regarding the fresh advertisement and suggest the applicant to participate the intermediate certificate.” is she has already obtained 4. Mr. M.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request of the petitioner was to reengage her as Anganwadi Worker. The authorities have completely misread the purport of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ Page 4 of 7 application by treating the representation of the petitioner as a fresh application for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. He further submits that the ground on which the petitioner was disengaged no longer subsists as the order of cancellation of the residential certificate of the petitioner has since been set aside and the appeal is yet to be decided finally. In the circumstances, there is no reason to disengage the petitioner. 5. Mr. S.S. Routray, learned counsel for the State submits that since in the meantime the guidelines have been revised and the academic qualification required is intermediate, the petitioner not being an intermediate, is therefore, not eligible for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order as well as the previous order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application and the materials on record, this Court finds that the ground on which the petitioner was disengaged no longer subsists in view of the setting aside of the order cancelling her residential certificate. The appeal is still pending. Under such circumstances, there was no occasion for the authorities to go for fresh selection as Page 5 of 7 the petitioner’s disengagement can no longer be treated as valid. In so far as the revision of the guidelines requiring a candidate to be intermediate is concerned, the same will have no application to the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner was engaged way back on 01.09.2018 as per the prevalent guidelines, which did not have such a stipulation. She was disengaged on 17.01.2022 on the ground that has been held to be unsustainable. The natural corollary therefore, is that the petitioner ought to be reinstated in her former post. As was held by this Court in the order passed in the earlier writ application, the fact of setting aside of the order of cancellation of the resident certificate was not within the knowledge of the concerned authorities. 7. Nevertheless, the order having been set aside and the appeal being sub-judice, it cannot be said that the resident certificate of the petitioner is invalid, which was the ground for her disengagement. These aspects do not appear to have been considered in the proper perspective by the concerned authorities while considering the representation of the
Arguments
: Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.S. Routray, Addl. Standing Counsel _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 19.03.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer. “The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule „NISI‟ calling upon the Opposite Parties Page 1 of 7 to show cause, as to why the impugned decision dated 23.07.2024 under Annexure-9 shall not be quashed and the petitioner shall not be reengaged in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Marad Anganwadi Center, Boriguma, Korapurt in the interest of justice; And if the Opposite Parties are fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule made absolute by issuing appropriate Writ(s) considering the facts and circumstances of the case; And/or pass such other order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court deem just & proper; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker of Marad Anganwadi Center under ICDS, Boriguma in the district of Koraput vide order dated 01.09.2018. While working as such, she was disengaged vide order dated 17.01.2022 on the ground that her resident certificate had been cancelled by the Additional Tahasildar, Boriguma. The petitioner had not been heard by the Additional Tahasildar before passing the order for which she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27276 of 2021. By order dated 22.09.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court finding that the petitioner had not received any notice in the appeal set aside the order of cancellation of the resident certificate and remanded the matter for fresh hearing of the appeal. It is stated Page 2 of 7 at the bar that the appeal has not been disposed of as yet. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a representation to the CDPO, Boriguma on 12.02.2024 bringing the above facts to the notice of the CDPO with request to reengage her as Anganwdi Worker. In the meantime, challenging the order of disengagement, the petitioner had also
Decision
petitioner. In view of the above narration, it is evident that the Page 6 of 7 petitioner’s claim subsists as per the prevalent guidelines as on the date of her engagement. 8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be reinstated as Anganwadi Worker. However, the appeal against her resident certificate not having been decided as yet, it shall be open to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law pursuant to any order that may be passed in the appeal. 9. The writ application is therefore, disposed of directing the CDPO, Boriguma to reengage the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker forthwith. She shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the period of disengagement but said period shall count towards notional continuity of service. ..…..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:53:02 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 19th of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno. Page 7 of 7