The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) Nos. 26812, 26991 & 27290 of 2024 (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) In W.P.(C) No.26812 of 2024 Diptimayee Lenka ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] In W.P.(C) No.26991 of 2024 Annapurna Majhi ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] Page 1 of 9 In W.P.(C) No.27290 of 2024 Juli Mohanta ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 10.07.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. All the three writ applications involve common facts and law for which they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For brevity the facts of the W.P.(C) No.26812 of 2024 are only reflected in this judgment. 2. An advertisement was issued on 10.07.2024 by the CDPO, Bhuban inviting applications from eligible Page 2 of 9 candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Jaypur-3 Anganwadi Center including Bedhapal-1 Anganwadi Center. The petitioner was one of the applicants. In the selection process, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks and was thus selected. Accordingly, by order dated 13.08.2024 she was engaged as Anganwadi Worker of the Center. However, by order dated 01.10.2024 of the CDPO, Bhuban, purportedly on the orders of the Sub-Collector dated 01.10.2024, the selection of Anganwadi Worker was cancelled. The petitioner submitted a representation addressed to the Collector along with others but no action was taken thereon. On the contrary, a fresh advertisement was issued on 17.10.2024, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-6 to the writ application. In the order dated 01.10.2024 the Sub-Collector, Kamakshyanagar, cancelled the advertisement dated 10.07.2024 on the ground of ‘adoption of procedural defect’ in selection of Anganwadi Worker. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- Page 3 of 9 “The petitioner therefore humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue Rule Nisi in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ(s) as it deems fit and proper, calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the order No.4301, dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-7 and Order No.884 dated 01.10.2024 issued by CDPO, Bhuban under Annexure-4 and the subsequent advertisement No.917 dated 17.10.2024 issued by the CDPO, Bhuban under Annexure-6, so far as the petitioner concerned shall not be quashed and why the petitioner shall not be allowed to discharge her duties as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Bedhapal-1 Anganwadi Center pursuance to letter No.695 dated 13.08.2024 under Annexure-3 within a stipulated period with all service benefits. And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute and, Pass any other writ/writs, order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. For this act of your kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. Be it noted that, in the connected writ applications also the petitioners were applicants and being selected and engaged in the other Anganwadi Center have challenged the cancellation of the advertisement dated 10.07.2024. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Opposite Parties inter alia, stating as follows:- “6. That, in reply to the averments made in paragraph-3 of the writ petition it is submitted that the notification for the selection of Anganwadi Workers for the five numbers of Anganwadi Centers was published as per guidelines No.4970, dated 15.03.023 prescribed by Dept. of Women & Child Development, Govt. of Page 4 of 9 including Odisha. The original document verification of the candidates was conducted on 30.07.2024 in presence of the selection committee. The petitioner has secured highest marks as per the comparative statement duly signed by all members of the Committee (Annexure-A/4). The final selection of the candidates was conducted on 12.08.2024 by the selection committee. The engagement order vide No.695, dated 13.08.2024 was issued to on dated the candidates 30.08.2024. But as the proceeding copy of the selection Sub-Collector, process was Kamakhyanagar, the selection committee, the petitioner was asked to accept her joining later. However, in pursuance the order of Sub-Collector, Kamakhyanagar vide No.4301, dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure-NB/4) regarding cancellation of notification of vide no.559 dated 10.07.2024 on the ground of procedural defect in selection process, the cancellation order on the aforesaid notification vide No.884, dated 01.10.2024 was issued by this deponent.” not by singed the Chairman of petitioner 5. Heard Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned counsel leading the arguments for the petitioners in all the three writ application with Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash and Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Mr. Lenka would argue that the impugned order is entirely silent as regards the so-called procedural defects adopted in the selection process. On the contrary, as admitted by the State in its counter the original document verification of all candidates was conducted on Page 5 of 9 30.07.2024 in presence of the selection committee wherein, the petitioner secured the highest marks as per comparative statement duly signed by all members of the committee. Mr. Lenka further submits that only because the Sub-Collector did not sign in the proceeding, the candidates cannot be blamed. Such action is therefore, arbitrary and unreasonable. 7. Mr. Patnaik, on the other hand would submit that the Sub-Collector being the Chairman of the selection committee was satisfied that a proper and transparent process had not been followed by the selection committee and therefore, rightly decided to cancel the advertisement. 8. From the contentions raised and on perusal of the materials on record it is evident that document verification of all the candidates was conducted on 30.07.2024 and as admitted by the State in its counter, same was in presence of the selection committee. The petitioner secured the highest marks as endorsed by the selection committee. It is stated that the Sub-Collector had not signed in the proceeding for which the selection Page 6 of 9 process was held to be not proper. Perusal of the comparative statement, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit reveals that the Sub-Collector has endorsed his signature thereon. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the selection was made in presence of the Chairman and all other members of the committee. So, only because the Sub- Collector subsequently did not sign in the proceeding, the candidates cannot be blamed. 9. Even otherwise, the impugned order does not cite any reason whatsoever for cancellation of the advertisement. The State has attempted to develop its case by citing additional reasons in the counter. Such course of action is not permissible in view of the settled position of law that the case of the party cannot be developed through its averments made in the counter. Reference in this regard may be heard to the oft- quoted judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another V. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1978 AIR 851. Even Page 7 of 9 otherwise, it is the settled position of law that though a candidate who has passed an examination or who appears in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, yet appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily, nor can the selection test be cancelled without proper justification. Further, the Court can give appropriate directions where a decision is found to be arbitrary. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 and East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010) 7SCC 678. 10. Viewed in the background of the legal proposition referred above, this Court has no hesitation in holding
Decision
that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable for which, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. In the result, the writ applications are allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2024 in so far it relates to the petitioners and the advertisement dated 17.10.2024 are hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be allowed to work as Anganwadi Workers of their respective centers Page 8 of 9 without any further delay and in any case, not later than four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by them. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 10th 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: 15-Jul-2025 18:27:58 Page 9 of 9