The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 25223 of 2019 and 26378 of 2019 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) W.P.(C). No. 25223 of 2019 Lili Bastia ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties _____________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA Mr. S. Swain, Advocate (O.P no.5) _______________________________________________________ W.P.(C). No. 26378 of 2019 Puspanjali Patra ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties _____________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. S. Swain, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate (O.P no.6) _______________________________________________________ Page 1 of 18 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 11th November, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Both these writ applications involving common facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts: 2. The CDPO, Ullunda in the district of Subarnapur published an advertisement on 31.05.2017 for engagement of helper in Badankaria Anganwadi Centre. In the Gram Sabha held on 06.06.2017, Lili Bastia (petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 25223 of 2019) was selected. She was issued with order of engagement by the CDPO on 07.06.2017 and joined thereafter. One Puspanjali Patra (Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 26378 of 2019), who was also one of the applicants, objected to the selection of Lili Bastia by submitting a representation to the CDPO on 12.06.2017 mainly on the ground that Lili Bastia does Page 2 of 18 not belong to Badankaria village but is a resident of Sarkaridadar village and as such, was not eligible for selection. Since no action was taken on her representation, Puspanjali Patra approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 18452 of 2017. By order dated 30.10.2017, this Court, without entering into the merits of the claim disposed of the writ application granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Collector of the district with a further direction for disposal of the representation within four weeks. By order dated 25.11.2019, the Collector, Subarnapur, after hearing the parties and other Government functionaries held that the selection procedure was not acceptable as the proceeding is not in detail nor clear. As such the appointment of Anganwadi Helper was cancelled with direction to float a fresh advertisement following the prescribed guidelines. It was also directed that Lili Bastia was to continue as Anganwadi Helper till engagement of Page 3 of 18
Decision
the new Anganwadi Helper. Both the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the above order of the Collector. Case of Lili Bastia: 3. It is claimed by Lili Bastia that she was selected in the village meeting wherein Puspanjali Patra was also present but she did not show any interest in spite of sufficient chance provided. Further, the petitioner satisfied all eligibility criteria and it is specifically averred that she is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area in question. Both Badankaria and Sarkaridadar are covered under one Anganwadi centre and as such the petitioner was eligible. The Collector has not considered the matter in the proper perspective but purely on technical grounds cancelled the selection of the petitioner. On such facts, the petitioner Lili Bastia has filed the writ application with the following prayer: “The petitioner therefore prays that | Your Lordship’s would graciously please to admit the writ petition, call for the records and after hearing both the parties quash/set aside the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Op.No.2 which is under Annexure-1 by. issuing Page 4 of 18 writ/writs in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus . in the interest of justice. And further be please to re-engage the petitioner as an anganwadi helper the Badaankaria Anganwadi Centre in the greater interest of justice. And further pass any order/orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner is In duty bound shall ever pray.” for 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the CDPO, Ullunda, it is stated that the relevant guidelines dated 24.11.1997 and 29.04.2010 regarding appointment of Anganwadi Helper were duly followed. Puspanjali Patra refused to function as Anganwadi helper nor her signature was available in the proceeding register, which creates doubt regarding her presence at the meeting. The Mahila Sabha nominated two eligible candidates and Lili Bastia was selected by lottery. Lili Bastia is residing in village Badankaria but she is from village Sarkaridadar. Case of Puspanjali Patra: 5. The petitioner claims that 5 candidates had applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper. The Mahila Sabha was held on 06.06.2017 during which the women of Badankaria village strongly objected to the candidature of Page 5 of 18 Lili Bastia as she does not belong to Badankaria. However, ignoring their objections, Lili Bastia was selected. Lili Bastia is a resident of village Sarkaridadar, which is evident from her voter identity card. The petitioner’s distress condition and eligibility were ignored in the selection of Lili Bastia which was against the norms of the advertisement. The Collector disposed of the representation after 2 years and 14 days only because the petitioner filed two contempt applications. The Collector did not consider the residence aspect and made out a third case by referring to the age limit mentioned in the proceeding, even though no one was affected by the same. Under such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have been selected instead of directing to float fresh advertisement. On such facts, the petitioner Puspanjali Patra has filed this writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore humbly prayed that under the above circumstances, the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI, calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause and if the Opp. Parties failed to Page 6 of 18 file show cause or filed insufficient cause on perusal of causes shown make the said RULE absolute and be further pleased to: (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other. Appropriate writ or the order dated 07.06.2017, order quashing Annexure-2 appointing the Opposite Party No.6 as Anganwadi Helper, Badankaria Anganwadi Centre, Badankaria under I.C.D.S. Project, Ullunda in the districtof Subarnapur and order dated 25.11.2019 under Annexure-6 passed by the learned Collector, Subarnapur-Opposite Party No.2 so far as it relates directing for new advertisement for the same post holding that selection process is not in details and clear and allowing O.P. No.6 to continue as Anganwadi Helper until engagement new Anganwadi for Badankaria Anganwadi Centre, Helper Badankaria is made as wrong and illegal; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ the opposite parties more or order directing particularly the C.D.P.0., Ullunda-Opposite Party No.5 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper, Badankaria Anganwadi Centre, Badankaria under I.C.D.S. Project, Ullunda in the district of Subarnapur with effect from the date the Opposite Party No.6 got appointment with all consequential benefits within a stipulated period as fixed by the Hon’‘ble Court; And pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper; And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO stating that Lili Bastia is a resident of village Sarkaridadar but the Anganwadi centre of Badankaria consists of two revenue villages namely, Sarkaridadar and Badankaria. As such applicants from both the villages can apply for the post. The Collector noticed some discrepancy in the Page 7 of 18 proceeding of the Gram Sabha and therefore, directed to float the fresh advertisement. SUBMISSIONS: 7. Heard Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the Lili Bastia (petitioner in W.P.(C). No.-25223 of 2019), Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for Puspanjali Patra (Petitioner in W.P.(C). No. -26378 of 2019) and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State. 8. Mr. Sourav would emphatically argue that the norms laid down by Government in the relevant guidelines were duly followed in the selection of Anganwadi Helper. Since Badankaria Anganwadi Centre covers both Badankaria and Sarkaridadar villages, it cannot be said that Lili Bastia was not eligible being a resident of Sarkaridadar. Mr. Sourav further argues that even otherwise, the complaint could not have been entertained at the instance of Puspanjali Patra as she was not eligible being only a 7th pass candidate, whereas the guidelines require the candidates to have passed class VIII. The Collector Page 8 of 18 has unnecessarily delved into the so-called error in mentioning the age limit in the proceeding of the selection committee. Though the age limit as per the guidelines is 18 to 42 years, same was wrongly mentioned as 20 to 40 years. However, no candidate was affected by such wrong recording nor the selected candidate was aged beyond the age limit. Under such circumstances, the selection of the petitioner could not have been interfered with by the Collector. 9. Mr. S.Swain, on the other hand, would argue that the advertisement itself was issued for the villagers of Badankaria. Lili Bastia is admittedly not a resident of Badankaria but of Sarkaridadar and was therefore, ineligible. The Collector, while disposing of the representation did not go into this aspect at all and though she found the selection of Lili Bastia to be wrong, directed a new advertisement to be floated instead of directing engagement of Puspanjali Patra. Page 9 of 18 10. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA submits that as per the records available there is one Anganwadi Centre at Badankaria covering two villages, namely, Badankaria and Sarkaridadar. Therefore, it cannot be said that Lili Bastia was not eligible. However, the proceeding of the selection committee suggests that the same was not conducted as per the relevant guidelines for which the Collector rightly interfered in the matter. 11. The facts of the case as narrated are not disputed. The selection of Anganwadi Helper is governed by the guidelines issued by the Government on 24.11.1997 which is quoted below: “ GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NO. 9994/WCD, Dated 24.11.1997 C.D.P.Os/District From Shri J. Digal, IAS, Director, Social Welfare. To The All Collectors/Collectors. Sub.: Guidelines for selection of Helpers for Anganwadi Centre. Sir, In supersession of all earlier instructions on the above subject I am directed to convey the following guidelines for selection of Helpers for Anganwadi Centres. These guidelines should be adhered to while making the selection. Social Welfare Officers/ Sub- Page 10 of 18 ELIGIBILITY: To be eligible for selection as Helper for an Anganwa Centre the following eligibility criteria must be fulfilled. (i)She must be a lady of the locality and acceptable to Anganwadi Worker (ii) She should not be of less than 18 years of age (iii)She can continue in the job till she discharges her di efficiently (iv) The CDPO is competent to appoint and discharge the Helper (v) Preference should be given to an Orphan, Widow, Separated Divorced or Deserted woman 2. PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION: A Helper will be selected by a committee consisting of the following persons (i)CDPO of the Project ………………..Chairperson (ii)Supervisor in-charge of the area………Member (iii)ANM in-charge of the area…………….Member The above Committee should select the Helper in consultation with the women groups of the village In case, for any reasons, to be recorded in writing it is not possible to make the selection in a particular village the selection may be made in the Project Head Quarters by the above mentioned Committee However, the candidate selected should fulfill all the eligibility criteria as mentioned at para- 1 above Though the Odisha Reservation of Vacancy Rules (ORV) is not applicable in this selection, in the villages predominantly occupied by the SC ST and OBC population the Helper selected may be from any of these communities who is in majority. By further guidelines dated 29.04.2010, was following Sd/- Director, Social Welfare” was clarified: GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NO. 8138/WCD, Dated 29.04.2010 From Smt. Sujata Kartnikeyan, IAS Director, Social Welfare, Ex-officio Addl. Secretary to Govt. To All Collectors Sub.: Guidelines for selection of Helpers for Anganwadi Centre. Sir/Madam, Page 11 of 18 In partial modification of the guidelines for the selection of Helpers for Anganwadi Centres circulated vide this department letter No. 999/WCD, dated 24.11.1997 the following amendment is made as under: In point No.1 (ii) it may be added & read as “the upper age limit is fixed up to 42 years”. In point No.1 (v) it may be added & read as “in case of divorces, legal separation is necessary. The applicant has to produce legally separated document issued by the competent Court”. Sd/- Director, Social Welfare” 12. It is nobody’s case that the selected candidate Lili Bastia did not fulfil the age criteria as per the guidelines. The only objection raised against her candidature is in respect of her residence, which is said to be beyond the service area of the Badankaria Anganwadi Centre. It is not disputed that she is a resident of village Sarkaridadar. It would be interesting to refer to the counter affidavits filed by the same officer, namely, CDPO in both the writ applications. In W.P.(C). No. 25223 of 2019, the CDPO, in his counter has simply stated that the petitioner (Lili Bastia) is residing in village Badankaria but as per the voter identity card belongs to Sarkaridadar. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C).No. Page 12 of 18 26378 of 2019 the following has been stated under paragraph 4 (h) “4.h) That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs-6 and 8 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the opp.party No.6 is a resident of village Sarkaridadar, but not Badankaria. The Anganwadi Center Badankaria consists of two revenue villages i.e Sarkaridadar and Badankaria. Applicants from both the villages can apply for the post ofAnganwadi Helper in respect of Badankaria Anganwadi Center.” Though the advertisement seems to be directed to the villagers of Badankaria without mentioning Sarkaridadar, yet in view of the categorical assertion of the CDPO quoted above coupled with the information produced by the State counsel during hearing of the writ application to the effect that the Badankaria Anganwadi Centre covers both the villages, this Court is unable to accept the contentions that Lili Bastia was not eligible on the ground of being a resident of Sarkaridadar village. 13. The above assertion of the CDPO has not been specifically refuted by Puspanjali Patra. It would be apt to refer to the guidelines dated 24.11.1997, quoted earlier, which provide that a candidate must be a lady of the Page 13 of 18 locality. The said guidelines, however, do not define the term “locality”. This Court had the occasion to interpret said expression in its judgment dated 15.04.2025 passed in Nirupama Pani v. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No. 5277 of 2025), wherein it was held as follows: “Perusal of the guidelines issued on 15.03.2023 by the Government relating to selection of Anganwadi Helpers reveals that, as per Clause 1(i), the candidate must be a lady of the locality and acceptable to the Anganwadi Worker. Thus, the place of residence has been broadly indicated as ‘locality’. Ordinarily, under the scheme of things, it would refer to the operational area of the Anganwadi Centre. The word ‘locality’ has not otherwise been defined in the guidelines. Locality means (i) a district or neighbourhood, (ii) the scene of an event, and (iii) the position of a thing. The word ‘locally’ means within or in terms of a particular area or the people living in it. Understood thus, the term ‘locality’, in the context of the guidelines, would obviously refer to the area over which the Anganwadi Centre has jurisdiction.” Though the above judgment considered the guidelines dated 15.03.2023, the same interpretation would equally apply to the guidelines dated 24.11.1997 since both guidelines have used identical language. Thus, in view of the undisputed factual position that the Anganwadi Centre at Badankaria covers both Badankaria Page 14 of 18 and Sarkaridadar under the same revenue village, the eligibility of Lili Bastia cannot be questioned, notwithstanding the fact that the advertisement did not specifically mention so. 14. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Collector has not delved into these aspects at all but focused her attention on the so-called discrepancies in the proceeding of the selection committee. Two issues were flagged by her-firstly, the age limit is mentioned as 20 to 40 years instead of 18 to 42 years and secondly, proceeding was not in detail and clear. As regards the first issue, it is nobody’s case that Lili Bastia did not fulfil the age criteria or that any other candidate was affected by such wrong mentioning of the age limit in the proceeding. As to the second issue, the Collector’s order itself is not clear as regards the so-called lack of clarity in the proceeding. It is stated that as per statement of Sector Lady Supervisor Smt. Madri Nag, lottery method has been adopted at the time of selection between two Page 15 of 18 applicants that is, Lili Bastia and Samari Padhan as the villagers refused to accept other three applicants out of total five. The proceeding however, reveals that lottery method was adopted for five applicants. The statement of the Sector Lady Supervisor has not been placed before this Court. Be that as it may, there being nothing in the proceeding to suggest that all five applicants were not included in the lottery, the Collector must be held to have erred in placing reliance on the so-called statement made by the Lady Supervisor. It must be kept in mind that the proceeding was also signed by the CDPO, and therefore, cannot simply be brushed aside on the basis of the statement of the lady supervisor. 15. Another aspect that appears to have escaped the attention of the Collector is, the eligibility of Puspanjali Patra herself. Though the guidelines prescribe the minimum educational clarification as being 8th pass, Puspanjali Patra had only 7th pass qualification making her ineligible thereby. That apart, though she claimed to Page 16 of 18 be an orphan but as per the statement of Anganwadi Worker Mandakini Mahakur she was not an orphan as her father was alive and living with him. Most significantly, the Collector has herself noted that Puspanjali Patra admitted the above fact. If such is the case, then it amounts to approaching the authority with unclean hands. Puspanjali Patra having falsely projected herself as an orphan, the objection submitted by her should have been thrown out on such score alone. 16. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order suffers from gross infirmity and incorrect appreciation of the relevant facts by the Collector. As such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. This Court has therefore, no hesitation in interfering with it. 17. For the foregoing reasons therefore, W.P.(C). No. 25223 of 2019, filed by Lili Bastia succeeds and is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The authorities are directed to allow her to continue as Page 17 of 18 Anganwadi Helper in the centre in question. W.P.(C). No. 26378 of 2019, filed by Puspanajali Patra being devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Deepak ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2025 10:34:21 Page 18 of 18