The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.39694 of 2021 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Kanchanbala Nayak … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Amitav Das, Advocate Mr.A.K.Dash, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. S.N.Patanaik, A.G.A For Opp.Party No.6 : Mr. P.K. Satpathy, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 13.12.2024. Sashikanta Mishra,J. An advertisement was floated on 2.11.2018 for selection and engagement of Anganwadi Helper of Badakaurda-II A.W.C. The Petitioner, along with two others including the private Opp.Party No.6 W.P.(C) No.39694 of 2021 Page 1 of 12 were applicants. The process of selection was initiated by conducting Mahila Sabha on 28.1.2019. In the said Mahila Sabha, the Petitioner secured the maximum votes and as such, was selected. An appointment order was issued in her favour on 8.2.2019, pursuant to which she joined and is continuing as Anganwadi
Legal Reasoning
Helper. The private Opp.Party No.6 challenged the selection of the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4258/2019. By
Decision
order dated 25.2.2019, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Collector, Balasore to dispose of the representation of the Opp.Party No.6 within a period of three months. The Collector, Balasore initiated Misc. Case No.14/2019 and after hearing all parties including the C.D.P.O, Baliapal, on 24.1.2020, rejected the claim of the Opp. Party No.6. The Opp.Party No.6 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11866/2020. This Court, by order dated 13.7.2020 quashed the order of the Collector and remitted the matter to the Sub-Collector, Balasore for hearing as the Sub-Collector is the appellate authority as per the W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 2 of 12 guidelines. The Sub-Collector, Balasore initiated S.S.W. Misc. Case No.7/2020 after considering the contentions raised and the survey lists held that 3 numbers of votes are to be deducted from the Petitioner’s total votes and two from the total votes of Opp.Party No.6. As such, the Petitioner should be treated as having secured 36 votes instead of 39 and therefore, cannot be treated as the winning candidate. The Sub-Collector, therefore, by order dated 07.12.2021 cancelled the selection of the Petitioner. 2. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the present Writ Petition with the following prayer; “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why; (1) The order dtd. 07.12.2021 passed by Sub- Collector, Balasore in SSW Misc. Case No. 07/2020 under Annexure-10 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal. (ii) The petitioner shall not be allowed to continue as per appointment order dtd. 08.02.2019 under Annexure-4. If the opposite parties fall to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute; W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 3 of 12 And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-Opp.Party (Opp.Party Nos.3 and 4) justifying the impugned order on the ground that the names of some persons who had voted in favour of Opp.Party No.6 was deleted from the survey lists after the Mahila Sabha was held and therefore, their votes had to be counted. As such, the number of votes secured by the Petitioner was less than the votes secured by the Opp. Party No.6 for which the Sub-Collector held that the Petitioner had been wrongly selected. It is further stated that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has been re-engaged and is working as Anganwadi Helper of the Centre till now. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the private Opp.Party No.6, inter alia, stating that from the voter list of Ratai village, it can be seen that Saraswati Rout, Amita Rout and Pratima Rout belong to the Ratai W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 4 of 12 Anganwadi Centre and therefore, their votes cast in favour of the Petitioner could not have been taken into account. Further, Namita Das and Dipanjalli Rout being included in the survey list, their votes could not have been deleted. On such factual findings, the Sub- Collector rightly held that the Opp.Party No.6 secured 37 votes as against 34 secured by the Petitioner. 5. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by the State as well as the private Opp.Party. It is basically stated in the rejoinder that the Sub-Collector relied on the survey report while determining the votes of the Petitioner whereas opp. party No.6 went one step ahead to find out when their names were deleted from the Anganwadi Centre. However, the Petitioner obtained information under the R.T.I. Act, which shows that the original selection was proper. That apart, there is no evidence as to when the names of Sumati Das and Taramani Padhi were deleted. Therefore, the finding that the names were deleted after completion of the Mahila Sabha is perverse. W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 5 of 12 6. Heard Mr. Amitav Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. P.K. Satpathy for the private Opp.Party No.6. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner would argue that instead of considering the survey list prepared by the committee, the Sub-Collector made a roving inquiry to find out the number of votes cast in favour of the private opposite party. His finding that Amita Rout, Pratima Rout and Saraswati Rout do not belong to the Anganwadi Centre in question is incorrect in view of the information obtained by the Petitioner under the R.T.I. Act. Moreover, the finding that the names of Sumati Das and Taramani Padhi should not be deleted is also wrong because both of them belong to different Anganwadi Centers. On such basis, Mr. Das argues that the order of the Sub- Collector cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, would submit that the Sub-Collector took W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 6 of 12 pain to verify the survey lists of the Anganwadi Centres in question and found that the Petitioner secured 36 votes whereas the Opposite Party No.6 secured 37 votes. Such finding is based on proper appreciation of the materials on record and therefore, this Court may not enter into the factual controversy. 9. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party would argue that the disputed questions of fact have been considered and determined by the competent authority by examining the relevant records/documents. This Court, sitting in the writ jurisdiction would be slow to interfere with such findings. The Sub-Collector rightly found that 3 extra votes had been cast in favour of the Petitioner by persons not belonging to the Anganwadi Centre in question and 2 votes cast in favour of the private Opp. Party had been wrongly deleted. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 7 of 12 10. From the facts placed before this Court it is seen that pursuant to Notification dated 2.11.2018 for engagement of Anganwadi Helper of Badakaurda-II Anganwadi Centre, there were 3 valid applicants including the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 6. A meeting was held on 28.01.2019 for selection of Anganwadi helper. Since the members of the Mahila Sabha could not arrive at a consensus, voting was held among the members. As such, 39 votes were cast in favour of the Petitioner, 35 votes in favour of Annapurna Samantaray and 37 votes in favour of opposite party No. 6. As already stated, the petitioner was declared selected having secured the highest votes, that is, 39. On appeal filed by Opposite Party No. 6 challenging the selection of the petitioner before the Sub-Collector it was found on verification of the survey list and records of different Anganwadi Centers that 3 persons namely, Amita Rout, Pratima Rout and Saraswati Rout, who had cast their votes in favour of the petitioner, did not belong to Badakaurda-II Anganwadi Centre area but belonged to Ratai-I AWC W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 8 of 12 area. As such, their votes in support of the petitioner were rejected on the ground of being outsiders. The total votes secured by the petitioner was thus reduced by 3 taking the tally to 36 instead of 39. Similarly, two members Namita Das and Deepanjali Rout, who had supported the opposite party No. 6 did not belong to Badakaurda-II Anganwadi Centre area. The names of members Sumati Das and Taramani Padhi, who had supported the opposite party No. 6 were deleted from the survey list Badakaurda-II Anganwadi Centre on 16/3/2019 and 20.3.2019 respectively which was after the date on which the Mahila Sabha was held that is, 28.12.2019. Therefore the Sub Collector held that their votes could not be deleted from the tally of opposite party No. 6. On such basis, the actual/valid support of Mahila members obtained by the opposite party No. 6 was found to be 37 instead of 39. The other candidate Annapurna Samantaray was found to have received 32 valid votes instead of 35 after rejection of the votes of 3 women members. Thus the petitioner was found to have secured 36 votes while the opposite party number W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 9 of 12 6 was found to have secured 37 votes. Accordingly, the selection and engagement of the petitioner was declared void by the impugned order. 11. It is seen from the materials placed before this Court that both the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 6 have obtained information under the R.T.I. Act from the Public Information Officer, ICDS, Baliapal regarding 3 women members referred to in the impugned order. Enclosed to the counter filed by the opposite party No. 6 is the Survey list of Ratai-I which contains the names of Saraswati Rout, Pratima Rout and Amita Rout. Surprisingly, the petitioner has also enclosed information supplied by the same Public Information Officer under the RTI Act which indicates that Saraswati Rout and Amita Rout belong to Badakaurda-II Anganwadi Centre, Sumati Das belongs to Jambirai-10 and Taramani Padhi belongs to Betagadia. This is entirely in variance with the information supplied to the opposite party No. 6 as referred above. Furthermore, the same also runs contrary to the findings of the Sub-Collector as W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 10 of 12 reflected in the impugned order. It is thus evident that the finding of the Sub-Collector cannot, in the circumstances, be held to be conclusive or definitely correct. Though the Sub Collector, in the impugned order has mentioned to have verified the survey list and records of different Anganwadi Centres to arrive at his findings yet in view of the mutually contradictory information supplied by the Public Information Officer as referred above, the matter remains shrouded in doubts and as such, the matter cannot be treated to have been conclusively and correctly determined by the Sub-Collector. 12. From the foregoing narration, this Court finds that the writ petition involves seriously disputed questions of fact which can only be gone into by the Sub-Collector by referring to the official records and documents. This Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot obviously enter into the factual controversy to arrive at a conclusive finding. There is thus, no other option but to remit the matter to the Sub-Collector for deciding the matter afresh. W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 11 of 12 13. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.12.2021 passed by the Sub- Collector, Balasore is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector, Balasore (Opposite Party No.3) for taking a decision afresh after verifying the official records and also taking note of the contradictory information supplied by the Public Information Officer to the petitioner on one hand and the opposite party No. 6 on the other. The Sub- Collector shall grant opportunity of hearing to all concerned and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Dec-2024 12:50:01 W.P.(C) No. 39694 of 2021 Page 12 of 12