Misc. Case No. 1 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 25981 of 2024 (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Manasi Jena ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] Mr. B. Rout, Advocate for (O.P. No.6) _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 29.07.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, Page 1 of 9 call for records, after hearing the parties issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ/directions, quash the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed in AWW Misc. Case No.1 of 2023 under Annexure-1 and direct the Opposite Parties to grant all the service benefit and remuneration in favour of the petitioner. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner applied for being engaged as Anganwadi Helper of Chhati Paikasahi Anganwadi Center under CDPO, Chandabali pursuant to an advertisement issued by the said CDPO. Several other persons from the locality also submitted their applications. The petitioner was selected being found suitable among all the candidates. Accordingly, she was issued with an order of
Legal Reasoning
engagement on 23.02.2019. Her selection was challenged by another candidate, who is the Opposite Party No.6 in the present writ application, by filing an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak, which was registered as AWW M.C. No.1 of 2023. The main contention raised by the appellant (O.P. No.6) was that no Mahila Sabha had been conducted by the CDPO and the selection was made in the office only to favour the selected candidate. Page 2 of 9 The Sub-Collector, in course of hearing, found that the CDPO could not produce any supporting
Legal Reasoning
document against the contention raised by the appellant. On verification of the record produced by the CDPO, it was also found that the selection was made in the office rather than through the Mahila Sabha. Why such procedure was adopted was not explained. Having regard to the above findings, the Sub- Collector held that the engagement of the selected candidate is null and void. The CDPO was directed to disengage the selected candidate and to take necessary steps for fresh selection. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer as quoted herein before. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO (O.P. No.5) inter alia, stating that as per the guidelines dated 24.11.1997, the selection of Anganwdi Helper is to be made through Mahila Sabha and in case the Mahila Sabha is unable to be conducted successfully due to any reason, then the same shall be done in the project office in Page 3 of 9 presence of the committee members. The Mahila Sabha, scheduled to be held on 02.08.2018 as per the advertisement dated 24.07.2018 could not be held and was re-scheduled on 18.08.2018 which was held on the scheduled date but the proceeding copy of the Mahila Sabha on 18.08.2018 was kept in the selection file without signature of committee members and also the selection file did not whisper anything why the proceeding was incomplete. Accordingly, considering the guidelines dated 24.11.1997, decision was taken to conduct the selection in the project office by the committee members, which was held on 20.02.2019. In the interview conducted on 22.02.2019, three applicants were present including the petitioner, who was selected. 5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the private Opposite Party No.6, who had filed appeal before the Sub- Collector. It is stated that the guidelines provide for selection of Anganwadi Helper only through Mahila Sabha but the procedure adopted in case of the petitioner was clearly unfair and in violation of said guidelines. Moreover, Page 4 of 9 the guidelines also prescribe giving of preference to certain categories of candidates like orphan, widow, separated, divorced and deserted women. The Opposite Party No.6 is a widow and therefore, should have been given preference. 6. Heard Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. B. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.6. 7. Mr. Satapathy would argue that the guidelines clearly provide that in case, for some reason, Mahila Sabha is unable to be held, selection can be made in the office of the CDPO in presence of the committee members. In the instant case, though notices were issued for holding of the Mahila Sabha yet the same could not be held for various reasons. As such, following the guidelines the selection was made in the office. The Sub-Collector has not considered the above aspect for which the impugned order warrants interference. 8. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, who also produced the original file maintained in the office Page 5 of 9 of CDPO relating to the selection of Anganwadi Helper submits that though several notices were issued for holding of the Mahila Sabha yet the same actually could not be held. Mr. Patnaik fairly submits that there is nothing in the file to show as to why the Mahila Sabha could not be held. 9. Mr. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.6 would argue that the selection was made in the office only to favour the petitioner and without any notice to his client. He further submits that the Opposite Party No.6 being a widow is entitled to preference among all candidates but by adopting an incorrect procedure, the petitioner was selected illegally. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the materials on record including the original file produced by the learned State counsel, this Court finds that notices were issued for conducting of Mahila Sabha on 02.08.2018 and 18.08.2018. There is not a whisper in the entire file as to why the Mahila Sabha called could not be held on the dates fixed. There is also Page 6 of 9 nothing on record to show that a conscious decision was taken by the concerned authorities to hold the selection in the office instead of convening Mahila Sabha. 11. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Helpers i.e., dated 24.11.1997. The procedure for selection is provided under paragraph-2 which is reproduced below:- “A Helper will be selected by a committee consisting of the following persons. (i) (ii) (iii) CDPO of the Project Chairperson Supervisor in-charge of the area Member 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.” [Emphasis added] 12. From a bare reading of the above guidelines it is clear that ordinarily, selection is to be made in consultation with the women groups of the village. In other words, such selection is to be made by convening Mahila Sabha. It is further provided that selection can Page 7 of 9 also be made in the Project Head Quarters by the committee but then the reasons for holding such meeting in the Project Head Quarters has to be recorded in writing. 13. As already stated, there is nothing in the original file nor any material has been placed before this Court to justify the decision taken to hold the selection committee meeting in the Project Head Quarters despite notices being issued for convening the Mahila Sabha on two occasions. To the above extent therefore, this Court finds nothing wrong in the order passed by the Sub-Collector holding that the selection process and procedure maintained by the CDPO was not in accordance with the guidelines of the Government. It is submitted at the Bar that further selection having been made pursuant to the new advertisement and the parties having submitted their applications since the year 2019 can be considered instead of going for fresh advertisement. This Court finds force in the submission inasmuch as there are eligible candidates, who can be selected by following the Page 8 of 9 procedure laid down in the guidelines. So, instead of conducting fresh selection it would be better if the eligible candidates as per the previous advertisement are considered by the selection committee. 14. The writ application is therefore, disposed of by modifying the impugned order only to the extent of directing the CDPO to conduct fresh selection of the eligible candidates pursuant to the original advertisement strictly in terms of the guidelines dated 24.11.1997. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from today. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 29th of July, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-Aug-2025 11:37:16 Page 9 of 9