Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Jai Podh … v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 33150 of 2022 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Jai Podh …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. B. Seth, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Behera, Addl. Government Advocate Mr. A. K. Biswal, Advocate for [Opposite Party No.6] _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 16th May, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks to challenge the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Nuapada in Anganwadi Case No.10 of 2021. Page 1 of 10 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that pursuant to an advertisement published by the CDPO, Boden in the district of Nuapada on 24.06.2021, the petitioner was one of the applicants for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Rengtapada Anganwadi Center. The Opposite Party No.6 was also one of the applicants. While the petitioner passed matriculation securing 63.83%, the Opposite Party No.6 had secured 69.3%, but she was not a resident of the Anganwadi Center area. According to the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.6 is a resident of Khairabadi. As such, the petitioner, being a resident of the service area, should have been considered. With a view to present her as a resident of the service area, the father of Opposite Party No.6 moved to village Khairabadi, along with his daughter, and resided in a rented house belonging to one Paramananda Gouda. The selection committee, however, without properly verifying the records, selected Opposite Party No.6 as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner submitted her objection before the CDPO, but the same was not considered. She, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.32727 of
Decision
2021, which was disposed of on 28.10.2021 granting her liberty Page 2 of 10 to file an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the above referred appeal before the ADM. 3. After considering the rival contentions raised, the ADM found that the family of Opposite Party No.6 is residing in the dwelling house constructed over Plot No.404(part) over an area Ac.0.03 dec of Khata No.195 recorded in the name of Paramananda Gouda at Khairabadi, Rengtapada and as such, the Opposite Party No.6 is eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. According to the petitioner, she is a permanent resident of the service area of the center while Opposite Party No.6 started residing in the rented house after publication of the advertisement and had not constructed any house at Rengtapada. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the selection committee had based their decision on a wrong survey register and selected Opposite Party No.6 illegally. The father of the Opposite Party No.6 purchased land measuring Ac. 0.27 dec from Plot No.404 in Khata No.195 in Mouza-Khairabadi recorded in the name of Paramananda Gouda vide RSD dated 18.12.2021, which is after the publication of the advertisement. Page 3 of 10 5. The stand of the State authorities is that five candidates, including the petitioner and Opposite Party No.6, had applied for selection as Anganwdi Worker. After due verification, the CDPO, vide letter dated 22.07.2021 invited objections from the locality. No objection was received against any candidate. The selection committee, therefore, prepared a merit list on 20.09.2021. The petitioner never raised any objection/complaint regarding residential certificate of Opposite Party No.6. The selection committee selected Opposite Party No.6 following due process. 6. It is further stated that as per the survey register maintained by the Anganwadi Worker, it is proved that the family of Ketaki Kumar Hans (Opposite Party No.6) is residing in the house constructed at Rengtapada for the last two years, prior to the advertisement. The CDPO, Boden along with the Sector Supervisor conducted an enquiry in the service area by holding a village meeting on 04.05.2021 and 09.08.2021. In the said meeting, the names of all heads of family of sixty households were read out before the villagers as given by the Anganwadi Worker of Khairabadi-1 Center. At that time, no one Page 4 of 10 objected to the household of the father of the Opposite Party No.6 or her residence at Rengtapada. The petitioner, who was also present, did not object to the same, rather signed on the meeting proceeding in token of her consent. The Opposite Party No.6 had obtained resident certificate on 13.05.2021, one month prior to the date of advertisement. The Tahasildar also forwarded the field enquiry report of Revenue Inspector (RI), Litisargi vide letter dated 25.08.2021, which revealed that the Opposite Party No.6 is a permanent resident of Khairabadi and is staying in the dwelling house constructed over Plot No.404 (part). Again, as per order of the Sub-Collector, Nuapada on 21.07.2021, Block Social Security Officer conducted enquiry along with, CDPO, Boden and found the above fact. 7. The stand of the Opposite Party No.6 is that she secured highest mark and was eligible in all respects being a resident of the service area of the center from 04.10.2021. The fact of her residence was duly proved in the enquiry conducted by the competent authority. As such, no illegality was committed in selecting her. 8. Heard Mr. B. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Page 5 of 10 S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.6. 9. Mr. Seth would argue that the Opposite Party No.6 is admittedly the resident of Khairabadi village, which does not come within the service area of Rengtapada Anganwadi Center. Her father falsely projected his family to be residing in the house of Paramananda Gouda of Rengtapada hemlet on rent only to enable his daughter to apply for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. The claim of the Opposite Party No.6 is not believable because there is no reason as to why her family, despite being resident of Khairabadi, would reside at Rengtapada, which is at a distance of just one kilometer. Further, as per the sale deed of the sale of land by the family of Paramananda Gouda to the father of Opposite Party No.6, there is no house or anything else situated on the plot. The authorities have shown undue favour to Opposite Party No.6. Mr. Seth concludes his argument by submitting that the ADM has not appreciated the facts in the proper perspective and wrongly rejected the appeal. Page 6 of 10 10. Mr. Behera, learned AGA would argue that even before the publication of the advertisement, village meetings were held to determine the service area, in which name of the head of each household was announced. In the process, the father’s name of Opposite Party No.6 was also announced but the petitioner, despite being present, never objected to the same. As such, she is estopped to question the residential status of Opposite Party No.6 subsequently. Even otherwise, the matter was enquired into thoroughly and it was found that the family of the Opposite Party No.6 was residing in the house of Paramananda Gouda since two years, which makes her resident of the service area. The ADM, taking note of all these facts, rightly dismissed the appeal. 11. Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.6 would argue that the petitioner has no basis to object to the candidature and selection of the Opposite Party No.6. Admittedly, the petitioner secured less marks than the Opposite Party No.6 and as both of them belong to the service area, Opposite Party No.6 was rightly selected. As regards the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner, Mr. Biswal Page 7 of 10 would argue that the said document was executed much after the advertisement and therefore, has no relevance. In any case, the document relates to a different portion of the same plot of land and therefore, has no bearing on the case. 12. After going through the facts of the case and on consideration of the rival contentions noted above, this Court observes that the sole point that requires consideration is, whether the finding of the Appellate Authority regarding eligibility of Opposite Party No.6 to be considered for selection and engagement as Anganwadi Worker is correct. In this regard, the objection raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the Opposite Party No.6 is actually a resident of Khairabadi but with a view to show that she is eligible, her father moved from their native village Khairabadi to Rengtapada and stayed in the house of Paramananda Gouda on rent. Resident certificate was issued by the Tahasildar, Boden in favour of the Opposite Party No.6, which is said to be based on the report of the Revenue Inspector (RI), Litisargi that Amar Singh Hans, father of Opposite Party No.6 is staying in the dwelling house constructed over Plot No.404 (part) over an area of Ac.0.03 dec Page 8 of 10 of Khata No.195 recorded in the name of Paramananda Gouda. The ADM has accepted the above fact. 13. The petitioner has heavily relied upon the sale deed dated 18.12.2021, whereby land measuring Ac 0.27 dec out of Ac 0.31 dec from Plot No.404 in Khata No.195 was purchased by Amar Singh Hans (father of Opposite Party No.6) from its recorded owners, namely, the family of late Paramananda Gouda. It is argued on such basis that since the recitals of the deed mentions that no dwelling house situates over the purchased land, which is an open place, it nullifies the claim of the Opposite Party No.6 of residing in a house over the same plot on rent. 14. This Court is unable to accept the above argument for the reason that dwelling house in which the family of Opposite Party No.6 was residing as per the report of the Revenue Inspector (RI) pertains to a portion of Plot No.404 to the extent of Ac 0.03 dec. Therefore, as rightly contended by Mr. Biswal, the sale deed refers to a different portion of the same plot, which does not contain any house. Reliance by the petitioner on the sale deed is, therefore, misconceived. Apart from the above, Page 9 of 10 no acceptable material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the finding of fact rendered by the ADM is fundamentally wrong to so as to persuade this Court to interfere. 15. Thus, from a conspectus of the above analysis, it is seen that the Opposite Party No.6 was accepted as resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center in question by the competent authority and such acceptance was on the basis of due investigation at the ground level and on consideration of other materials like the survey register and report of the Revenue Inspector (RI). The ADM has committed no error much less illegality in arriving similar findings regarding residence of Opposite Party No.6. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of fact of the ADM. 16. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the writ application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. ..…..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 16-May-2025 13:10:08 Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 16th of May, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno. Page 10 of 10