The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 24901 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Pinkina Samantaray and Ors ...… Petitioners --------------- -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. S.R.Mohanty, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate Mr. L.N.Rayatsingh, Advocate for Opposite Party No.8 _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25th April, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the appointment of Opposite Party No.8 as Anganwadi Worker of Tarapada-II Anganwadi Centre in the district of Puri on the ground that foul play was Page 1 of 7 involved in issuance of the advertisement dated 10.09.2019. 2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 10.09.2019 by the CDPO, Kanas for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Tarapada-II Anganwadi Centre. The Opposite Party No.8 approached
Legal Reasoning
this Court in W.P.(C). No. 4618 of 2023 claiming to have been selected in the selection process and seeking a direction to the authorities to issue order of engagement in her favour. This Court, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 18.07.2024 disposed of the writ application with the following direction;
Decision
“Such being the factual position, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Collector, Puri (Opp. Party No.2) to take a final decision in the matter as early as possible preferably, within four weeks from today. It is needless to mention that unless any concrete evidence the of advertisement is found, the process of selection already initiated shall be taken to its logical conclusion without any further delay.” foul play with regard to publication of Pursuant to such order, the Sub-Collector, Puri vide order dated 05.09.2024 issued order of engagement in favour of Opposite Party No.8 without considering the concrete evidence regarding foul play in publishing the advertisement. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the advertisement dated 10.09.2019 was not Page 2 of 7 properly circulated in the manner required by law inasmuch as the villagers under Badas Gram Panchayat were not given opportunity/ information/notice of such report. Though the Sub-Collector was directed by this Court to take a decision considering whether any foul play was involved, he ignored the evidence and issued order of engagement in favour of Opposite Party No.8 illegally. It is also stated that the notice inviting objections dated 26.09.2019 was directed to be published in the central region of Village-Tripuri with a copy to be sent to the Sarpanch of Badas Gram Panchayat but was never published in the region for information of the public. The petitioners further states that the Sub-Collector, without complying the direction of this Court in the earlier writ application, fixed the date for selection of Anganwadi Worker but the petitioners were not aware of what transpired in the said meeting. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO, inter alia, stating that due process was followed in selecting the Opposite Party No. 8 and that the petitioners have Page 3 of 7 levelled false allegations with malafide intention to derail the recruitment process thereby depriving the children of the survey area from getting the benefits. It is also stated that the copy of the advertisement dated 10.09.2019 was duly affixed on the wall of Bhagabata Ghara of Tarapada village in presence of the Sarapanch of Badas Gram Panchayat, ward member of the survey area, in-charge Anganwadi Worker and seven villagers, which is in line with the guidelines dated 02.05.2007. The CDPO, has followed all procedure and the letter inviting objection was served on the Sarpanch of Badas Gram Panchayat, Ward Member and villagers of Tarapada. The Sub-Collector found no evidence of foul play. 4. Heard Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr. L.N.Rayatsingh, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 8. 5. From the materials placed before this Court, it is evident that an advertisement was issued on 10.09.2019, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1. Page 4 of 7 The memo of the advertisement reveals that a copy of the same was directed to be affixed in the central region of the village for information of the general public as also in the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. It is stated that there were two applicants pursuant to such advertisement, namely, the Opposite Party No.8 and one Priyanka Parikray Opposite Party No.8 was selected for engagement. Some of the villagers of Tarapada-II and one Lipi Behera submitted objection that they were not aware of the advertisement for which the matter was stalled. Considering the stand taken by the parties in the earlier writ application, this Court directed the Sub- Collector to take a final decision in the matter with the rider that unless any concrete evidence of foul play with regard to publication of the advertisement is found, the process of selection already initiated shall be taken to its logical conclusion. The order passed by the Sub- Collector on 17.02.2025 pursuant to the above direction has been enclosed to the reply affidavit filed by the State. Said order was passed after hearing the present petitioners and others. After taking note of the Page 5 of 7 submissions made and on verification of the records including the photocopy of the evidence of proper service of public notice, the Sub-Collector observed as follows: in “1. The procedures have been maintained properly the for appointment of AWW Tarapada-II AWC as per Govt. guidelines. 2. The application for selection of volunteers to work as AWW has been received in due date. 3. Two applicants had applied one namely Minakhi Behera and another Priyanka Paikaray. 4. The present AWW Smt. Minakhi Behera got appointment order in pursuance of the selection made by the Selection Committee in due obedience to the order dtd. 18.07.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P.(C). No. 4618 of 2023. 5. The present petitioners have not applied for the post of AWW of Tarapada-Ii AWC and have not submitted any objections orally or written at the time objection period. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned above, I am of the opinion that advertisement for appointment of Anganwadi Worker of Tarapada- II Anganwadi Centre was duly published in the then authorities have local area and scrupulously followed the instructions of the Government the appointment of Anganwadi Worker. Hence the allegation of foul play in the publication of advertisement is not justified. The grievance petition/representation is disposed of accordingly as observed above”. regarding the The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate as to how the above finding of the Sub-Collector is wrong or factually incorrect. Even otherwise, the report being submitted by a senior government officer of the rank of Sub-Collector, this Court, in the absence of any Page 6 of 7 allegation of malafides, finds no reason to disbelieve the same. 6. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court accepts the findings of the Sub-Collector that no foul play was involved in publication of the advertisement as well as the notice inviting objection so as to be persuaded to interfere in the matter. 7. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the writ application, which is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:06:27 Page 7 of 7