Misc. Case No. 1 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 29452 of 2022 An application under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Bharati Pradhani ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, [Additional Government Advocate] Mr. Nihal Rath, [Advocate for Opposite Party No.4] ___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 8th of August, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner calls in question the correctness of order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Additional District Page 1 of 13 Magistrate (ADM), Kalahandi in Anganwadi Misc. Case No.1 of 2021 whereby the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center was quashed and the Opposite Party No.4 was directed to be engaged. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are that, an advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Kalampur on 05.07.2021 inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center. The petitioner and fifteen other persons submitted their applications. In the selection process that followed, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks being 80.33% among all the candidates while Opposite Party No.4 secured 64.66%. As such, the petitioner was selected and engagement order was issued in her favour on 07.08.2021. The petitioner joined as Anganwadi Worker and started discharging her duties satisfactorily. 3. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.4 preferred the above mentioned appeal challenging the Page 2 of 13 selection of the petitioner on the ground of late submission of residence certificate by her and that she is not a resident of the Anganwadi Center service area. Said appeal was ultimately allowed by the ADM by the impugned order, holding that the petitioner had submitted residence certificate after the cut-off date, i.e. 20.07.2021 and acceptance of such certificate by the selection committee is in violation of the guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the Government. As already stated, the selection of the petitioner was quashed and the selection committee was directed to appoint the Opposite Party No.4 as Anganwadi Worker of the center in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ application with the following prayer:- “Under such circumstances the petitioner therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the writ application issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties more especially Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to show cause as to why the illegal order dated 27.09.2022 passed Anganwadi Misc. Appeal Case No.1 of 2021 as per Annexure No.2 thereby disengaging the petitioner and to engage Opposite party No.4 in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary, and thereby quashed. And upon showing no cause or insufficient cause the rule be made absolute by allowing the writ application with a subsequent direction to the Opposite Page 3 of 13 Parties more especially Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi center with all consequential service and financial benefit. And for which act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Preliminary counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO, Kalampur. It is stated that sixteen candidates had applied pursuant to the advertisement including the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4. The original documents of all the candidates were verified by the selection committee on 22.07.2021. At that time, it was found that the petitioner had applied by submitting residence certificate of village Gharla issued in the year 2016. When asked about this, she informed the selection committee that she was residing in village Gharla during the year 2016 but from 2018 onwards, she is residing in village Deypur. The earlier residence certificate had been submitted in ignorance of the guidelines. Nevertheless, the petitioner produced the recent residence certificate showing her a resident of village Deypur before the committee on 22.07.2021, which was refused to be Page 4 of 13 accepted. The petitioner therefore, approached the Chairman of the committee, being the Sub-Collector, Dharmagarh, who directed the committee members to accept the same. The appeal was preferred by Opposite Party No.4 challenging such acceptance of the residence certificate of the petitioner after the cut-off date. The appeal was allowed by holding that petitioner was not a resident of the service area in question. 5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the private Opposite Party No.4 wherein, it is inter alia, stated that as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, the candidates were required to upload their certificates online. The petitioner submitted such application stating that she is a resident of Gharla. Subsequently, she obtained another certificate showing her a resident of Deypur but the same was submitted after the cut-off date. In any case, the certified copy of the certificate indicates that the same was cancelled and another certificate was issued on 02.08.2021, which was much after the date of certificate verification. Thus, the petitioner has relied upon Page 5 of 13 three residence certificates. The Opposite Party No.4
Legal Reasoning
therefore, challenged her selection by filing appeal before the ADM. The appeal was allowed as the Appellate Authority found that the selection committee had acted beyond the guidelines in accepting the residence certificate of the petitioner beyond the cut-off date. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4. 7. Mr. Chand would argue that the petitioner is a resident of village Deypur though she was residing in village Gharla prior to 2018. The residence certificate subsequently issued by the Tahasildar clearly proves such fact. The residence certificate issued in her favour in the year 2016 was validly issued showing her a resident of Gharla as she was residing in the said place at that time. But subsequently, she moved to Deypur and started residing there. It is further submitted that online applications were received for the first time in the year Page 6 of 13 2021 and the petitioner being a person from remote area of the State was not aware of the procedure for submitting online applications. Several other candidates like her also requested for permission to submit offline applications. It is under such circumstances that, she submitted the residence certificate after the cut-off date. Mr. Chand further submits that the ADM has not considered the above aspect in the proper perspective at all. Further, there was no occasion to engage the Opposite Party No.4 in place of the petitioner since there were more meritorious candidates than her and she figured very low in the merit list. 8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik learned AGA, would argue that the advertisement stipulated that all necessary documents are to be uploaded along with the application. In her application, the petitioner clearly mentioned her place of residence as Gharla. She also submitted a residence certificate to that effect of the year 2016. Though, she submitted another certificate but the same was beyond the cut-off date i.e., 20.07.2021. According to Mr. Patnaik, Page 7 of 13 such certificate could not have been accepted by the selection committee as there is no power conferred upon it to extend the cut-off date in any manner whatsoever. 9. Mr. Rath would argue that the petitioner has relied upon three certificates, one of the year 2016 showing her as a resident of village Gharla, second, issued on 20.07.2021 showing her a resident of Deypur which was cancelled and the third, on 02.08.2021 also showing her a resident of village Deypur. The petitioner herself mentioned her place of residence as Gharla in her application. If she was residing in village Deypur, there was no reason why she would mention the same as Gharla. The Appellate Authority therefore, rightly held that the selection committee committed illegality in accepting the residence certificate beyond the cut-off date and selecting the petitioner. 10. From the rival contentions noted above, it is evident that the first question that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner adduced valid proof of her claim that she was a resident of village Deypur. In this regard, Page 8 of 13 reference to the copy of online application submitted by the petitioner, enclosed as Annexure-B/4 to the counter filed by the Opposite Party No.4, reveals that under the heading ‘Address’ the petitioner has mentioned ‘At-Gharla, P.O.-Deypur’. The certificate issued in the year 2016 showing her resident of Gharla was enclosed to the application. This, prima facie, shows that she was a resident of Gharla and not Deypur. 11. It is worth considering as to why a person belonging to a particular village would mention her address differently in the application when the advertisement clearly stipulates that the person to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker must be a resident of the service area of the said center. 12. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that the petitioner produced a residence certificate issued on 20.07.2021 by the Tahasildar, Kalampur. The word ‘cancelled’ is endorsed on such certificate, as evident from the copy thereof enclosed as Annexure-C/4 to the counter filed by the Opposite Party No.4. What is surprising to Page 9 of 13 note is that another certificate was issued in her favour on 02.08.2021 against the same miscellaneous certificate case number. It would be worthwhile to note that the ADM having noticed the above discrepancy had called upon the Tahasildar to submit a report. What report was submitted in this regard has not been placed before this Court. 13. The said certificate was accepted by the selection committee on 22.07.2021, which is after the cut-off date i.e., on 20.07.2021. It is well settled that the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement cannot be extended by the selection committee under any circumstances and therefore, acceptance of the certificate beyond the cut-off date cannot be countenanced in law. 14. Coming to the stand taken by the petitioner that the petitioner and several other candidates were ignorant of the procedure for filing online applications, this Court finds that the ADM has taken note of such contingency in the impugned order as being intimated by the selection committee. In fact, pursuant to order of this Court, the State counsel obtained instructions to the effect that five Page 10 of 13 candidates, including the petitioner, had requested for accepting their certificates after the cut-off date. This Court is unable to accept such a stand for the reason that there is no official order passed to such effect. In any event, the selection committee could not have unilaterally taken such decision without seeking approval of the higher authorities or even the Government. As already stated, the petitioner was in possession of three certificates, out of which, one was of the year 2016 and the other was cancelled. The only certificate that can be treated as valid was issued on 02.08.2021, that is long after the cut-off date. Thus, there is no way by which the petitioner, despite being the most meritorious in terms of marks secured, could have been selected for engagement. The impugned order, to such extent, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 15. This Court however, finds that having quashed the selection of the petitioner the ADM has straightaway directed the selection committee to appoint the Opposite Party No.4 in her place without ascertaining her position Page 11 of 13 in the merit list. A bare perusal of the merit list, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, prima facie, reveals that there were more meritorious candidates than Opposite Party No.4, though they had not challenged the selection of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the above, this Court is of the considered view that once the original selection is set aside, the ADM ought to have directed the authorities to select a person from among the remaining candidates after considering their relative merit. The impugned order therefore, deserves to be modified appropriately. 16. In the result, the writ application is disposed of by confirming the order of the ADM only to the extent of quashment of the selection and engagement of the petitioner but the direction to the selection committee to appoint Opposite Party No.4 in her place is modified by directing the selection committee to revisit the process of selection and select the most meritorious candidate among the remaining candidates considering their relative merit. Page 12 of 13 The whole exercise should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8th of August, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Aug-2025 10:39:22 Page 13 of 13