Orissa High Court
Case Details
AFR ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.A. NO. 2277 OF 2023 In the matter of an appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters of Patent Patna 1862 read with Article-IV of Orissa High Court Order from the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19984 of 2014. --------------- Sulochana Behera ..… Appellant -Versus- Collector-cum-Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak and others ….. Respondents For appellant : M/s. Sukanta Kumar Nayak, K. Jena, S.S.K. Nayak, M. Mohanty and T. Dash, Advocates For respondents : Mr. R.N. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate [Respondents No.1 to 3) P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE DR. B.R.SARANGI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT : 02.11.2023 DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACJ. The appellant, by means of this writ appeal, assails the order dated 16.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 19984 of 2014, by which the learned Single Page 1 of 8 Judge directed the respondents no.1 to 3 to select Anganwadi Helper by conducting a fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with the due process of law. 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of this appeal, in brief, is that one Malatilata Padhi @ Mohanty approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 19984 of 2014 against the inaction of the Child Development Project Officer, Basudevpur in appointing the present appellant as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Nakharaj Majhi Sahi Anganwadi Centre in Nuagaon G.P. under Basudevpur I.C.D.S. Project in the district of Bhadrak. It was pleaded in the writ petition that selection and appointment of the present appellant was made without following due procedure and method as envisaged in the guidelines dated 24.11.1997 issued by the Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department. As per such guidelines, Mahila Sabha was to be convened for selection of Anganwadi Helper and while doing such selection preference should be given to widow candidate. But no
Decision
such preference was given, even though the writ petitioner- Page 2 of 8 respondent no.4 was a widow. Such selection was made, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the CDPO, and in response to the same, the writ petitioner-respondent no.4, opposite party no.4-appellant herein and others applied with their testimonies, but, without conducting any Mahila Sabha, the present appellant, who was the opposite party no.4 in the writ petition, was issued with appointment order dated 19.05.2012 and accordingly she joined the post. 2.1 While the present appellant was continuing and discharging her duty, on 12.07.2013 the Mahila Sabha was convened, in which the writ petitioner-respondent no.4 and another candidate, namely, Swarnalata Sethy appeared, but in the said meeting no selection could be made and the meeting was adjourned to 23.07.2013. Had the selection of the present appellant-opposite party no.4 to the writ petition been done by holding the Mahila Sabha in accordance with the prescribed guidelines, then there was no occasion of calling for another Mahila Sabha on 12.07.2013, as appointment order had already been issued Page 3 of 8 to the appellant on 19.05.2012. Thereby, learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the selection of the appellant-opposite party no.4 to the writ petition has been done without following due procedure as envisaged under the guidelines dated 24.11.1997 issued by the Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department and accordingly directed the respondents no. 1 to 3 to select Anganwadi Helper by conducting a fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with the due process of law. 3. Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was appointed by the CDPO, vide appointment order dated 19.05.2012, pursuant to which she resumed her duty and since then she has been discharging her duties and responsibilities. But her selection and appointment was challenged by the present respondent no.4 by filing W.P.(C) No. 19984 of 2014 specifically urging therein that no Mahila Sabha was convened, while selecting the appellant herein, for which her selection was contrary to the prescribed procedure. He further contended that the Page 4 of 8 selection of the appellant having been done by following due procedure and the appellant having been continuing since 2012 after issuance of appointment order by the CDPO, it cannot be said that Mahila Sabha was not convened nor recommendation was made by the Mahila Sabha by giving such appointment by the selection committee constituted pursuant to the prescribed guidelines dated 24.11.1997 issued by the Government. Therefore, it is contended that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that for selection of Anganwadi Helper, convening of Mahila Sabha is the pre-condition prescribed in the guidelines and Mahila Sabha has to recommend the names to the Selection Committee and on the basis of the recommendation made by the Mahila Sabha, the Selection Committee has to select the candidates for the purpose of appointment and, thereafter, the CDPO has to issue appointment order to the preferential candidate to be chosen by the Selection Page 5 of 8 Committee. As such, in the present case, such procedure having not been adhered to, the selection of the present appellant cannot be sustained in the eye of law. According to him, learned Single Judge has passed a just and reasoned order, which may not be interfered with in the present appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, including the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court finds that admittedly pursuant to the advertisement issued by the authority, several candidates, including the appellant and respondent no.4, submitted their applications. But, while selecting the appellant, the procedure as laid down under the guidelines dated 24.11.1997 issued by the Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department was not adhered to in letter and spirit by holding Mahila Sabha, as is evident from the fact that after issuance of the appointment order dated 19.05.2012, Mahila Sabha was convened on 12.07.2013 in which respondent no.4 and another candidate, namely, Page 6 of 8 Swarnalata Sethy had appeared, but in the said meeting no selection was made and the meeting was adjourned to 23.07.2013. The very action of respondents no.1 to 3 clearly indicates that the selection of the appellant has not been done by following due procedure, inasmuch as, by holding Mahila Sabha. In any case, if the pre-requirement of the guidelines issued by the Government demands holding of Mahila Sabha, the same should have been adhered to in letter and spirit. Without doing so, if the appointment order has been issued by the CDPO, Basudevpur in favour of the appellant, that itself cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. Apart from what has been stated above, this Court, on careful perusal of the order impugned, further finds that the learned Single Judge, while analysing the materials available on records, came to a definite conclusion that as per the procedure prescribed Mahila Sabha was not conducted and accordingly directed respondents no.1 to 3 to select Anganwadi Helper by conducting a fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with due Page 7 of 8 process of law. Thus, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order impugned dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19984 of 2014 so as to call for interference at this stage. 7. In the above view of the matter, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree. (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 2nd November, 2023, Arun Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Nov-2023 17:52:25 Page 8 of 8