The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 22779 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Sonali Behera .… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.Sourav, Advocate, For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.R.Dash, Addl. Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 23rd September, 2024 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why firstly the eligibility criteria No. 2 under annexure-2 so far as it relates to the cut off as 01.01.2024. should not be set aside/modified as 01.04.2024 in terms of the guidelines Page 1 of 6 fide under annexure-1 and secondly as to why the candidature of the Petitioner should not be consider under annexure-2 for the post of Anganwadi Helper. And it the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then make the said rule absolute by issuing a writ in nature of certiorari mandamus by setting aside/modifying the eligibility criteria No.2 under annexure-2 so far as it relates to the cut off as 01.01.2024 to 01.04.2024 in terms of the guidelines under annexure-1 and secondly by directing to why consider the candidature of the Petitioner under annexure-2 for the post of Anganwadi Helper. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for the act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever humbly pray. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the advertisement dated 23.07.2024 issued by the CDPO, Biramaharajpur, in particular with regard to the Clause 2 of the eligibility conditions. According to the petitioner, the age requirement of 18-35 years, being reckoned from 01.01.2024, is wrong and it should relate back to the first of April (financial year). Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court not only to Clause 2 of the impugned advertisement but also the revised guidelines dated 15.03.2023 of the Government in Women and Child Development Page 2 of 6 Department. Mr. Sourav refers to the guidelines relating to selection of Mini Anganwadi Centres wherein Clause 2 reads as follows: “The applicant will be a female candidate in the age group of 18 to 35 years on the first day of the year in which the application has been invited.” 3. According to Mr. Sourav, the first day of the year means the first day of financial year which in Odisha begins from 1st of April. Mr. Sourav also refers to the Odisha Children’s and Women’s Welfare (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 (for short, “1999 Rules”). He draws attention of this Court to Rule 7, Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) whereof reads as follows: “(a) The candidate must be a woman of not less than twenty-one years and not more than thirty two years of age on the first day of January of the recruitment year.” He concludes his arguments by submitting that the impugned advertisement must therefore be treated as not being in consonance with the relevant rules. 4. Per contra, Mr. A.R.Dash, learned AGA submits that the 1999 Rules have no application to the Page 3 of 6 case of Anganwadi Workers, Mini Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers. He draws attention of this Court to Rule 3 which mentions the composition of the service and provides that there shall be two grades, namely, the Junior Grade and Senior Grade. Further, Rule 6 provides for selection to the Junior Grade of the service either by direct recruitment or by selection from amongst Anganwadi Workers of the district. This, however, does not relate to selection of Anganwadi Workers or Helpers as the case may be. It is only upon selection to the Junior Grade that the Rules would become applicable. 5. This Court has perused the impugned advertisement and the relevant clause wherein it is clearly mentioned that the reckoning of age should be from 01.01.2024. There is no dispute that the advertisement has been issued in the year 2022. After going through the provisions of the 1999 Rules, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of the learned State counsel that the Rules have no application to the selection of Anganwadi Workers/Mini Anganwadi Page 4 of 6 Workers/ Anganwadi Helpers. They would become applicable only upon an Anganwadi Worker being selected into the Junior Grade. In the absence of any statutory rules, the relevant guidelines issued by the Government would hold the field. As already stated, the Government in WCD Department issued revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Mini Anganwadi Workers/ Anganwadi Helpers on 15.03.2023. In so far as Anganwadi Helpers are concerned, the eligibility condition stipulates as follows: “1. ELIGIBILITY: - To be eligible for selection as Helper for an Anganwadi Centre the following eligibility criteria must be fulfilled. i. xx xx xx ii. She should not be of less than 18 years of age and should not be more than 35 years of age, as on the first day of the year In which the application has been invited. iii. xx xx xx” There is thus, no doubt that it is the year in which the advertisement is issued that is relevant 6. It is to be further noted that the word “year” has not been defined in the guidelines or in the Page 5 of 6 advertisement. Therefore, it would be proper to refer to the General Clauses Act, 1897 wherein Section 3 (66) defines “year” as shall mean a “year” year reckoned according to the British calendar.” Therefore, in the absence of any further qualification and particularly considering the guidelines there can be no manner of doubt that the reckoning of age has to be made from the first of January of the year in which the advertisement is issued. 7. For the foregoing narration therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by
Decision
the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23rd September,2024/Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2024 15:39:32 Page 6 of 6