The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 41417 OF 2021 An application under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------- Kumari Pradhan ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. L.N. Rayatsingh S. Mohanty & S.N. Behera, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Behera, Addl. Government Advocate M/s. S. Mishra, R. Mishra D. Swain, S. Mohanta M.K. Baral & D.R. Sethi, (for O.P.No.4) Advocates _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 11.03.2025. SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Puri in Anganwadi Appeal No. 6 Page 1 of 10 of 2020 is impugned in the present writ petition whereby, the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper of Kapileswarpur 2nd Sha Anganwadi Center was held illegal and was set aside. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the case, relevant to decide the lis, are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.09.2020 published by the CDPO, Brahamagiri, the petitioner submitted her application for being engaged as Anganwadi Helper of the aforementioned Anganwadi Center. In the Selection Committee meeting held on 07.09.2020, the petitioner, having received the support of twenty eight persons, was declared selected. The present opposite party No.4 received nine votes and one Sukanti Jena received only one vote. The petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Helper by order dated 07.09.2020 of the CDPO and started working. While working as such, she received notice from the ADM in the appeal filed by the present opposite party No.4. Pursuant to the notice, she entered appearance and contested the matter specifically raising the competence of the ADM to hear the matter. It was Page 2 of 10 alleged by the opposite party No.4-appellant that the CDPO had not put her signature on the resolution and the petitioner had submitted false certificate. The petitioner contends that she is a widow and fulfills all the eligibility criteria. Moreover, the guidelines issued by the government for engagement of Helper does not require submission of educational certificate. The ADM however, held that being an Administrative officer, he had jurisdiction to settle issues relating to Anganwadi Center and on merits held that the petitioner having played fraud by producing a forged educational certificate, her appointment was illegal. On such finding the appeal was allowed. 3. Stand of the State, as evident from the counter affidavit filed by the CDPO, is that the petitioner joined as Anganwadi Helper having been selected as such on 07.09.2020 and continued till 27.08.2021. The opposite party No.4 being aggrieved by the petitioner’s selection and engagement filed Anganwadi Appeal No.6 of 2020, which was allowed. It is also stated that ‘Kumari Swain’ Page 3 of 10 and ‘Kumarimani Swain’ are one and the same person as per the affidavit submitted by the petitioner and after her marriage her surname was changed from ‘Swain’ to ‘Pradhan’ and she is presently known as ‘Kumari Pradhan’. The school leaving certificate filed by the petitioner along with the application is a forged document. She submitted her school leaving certificate No.186/22 of Maa Hingulai UP School in the name of Kumari Swain, daughter of Arakhita Swain with her application which revealed that she was admitted in the school on 18.07.1992 and passed HSC examination in the year, 1994. Her husband Narayan Pradhan expired on 26.07.2004. The Headmaster of Maa Hingulai UP School, being requested, furnished a report that no student with the name Kumari Swain had been admitted in the school during the period from 1992 to 1993. It is admitted that there is no criteria or direction for calling for the educational status of an applicant for engagement as Helper. It was called for in the advertisement to know the actual date of birth of the applicant, which was found to Page 4 of 10 be forged. Consequent upon disposal of the appeal, the petitioner was disengaged and opposite party No.4 being her next contestant has been engaged as Helper. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. L. N. Rayatsingh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Siddharth Mishra, learned counsel for the private opposite party. 5. Mr. Rayatsingh would argue that as per the guidelines prevalent at the relevant time, no appeal was provided against selection/engagement of Anganwadi Helper. Therefore, the ADM could not have assumed jurisdiction as Appellate Authority and adjudicated the dispute raised by the opposite party No. 4. The impugned order is thus a nullity. On merits, Mr. Rayatsingh would argue that there was no necessity to produce any educational certificate. Therefore, the certificate produced by the petitioner cannot have any importance. That apart, it has not been clearly proved that the certificate was forged. Page 5 of 10 6. Mr. Behera, learned State Counsel would submit that the ADM being the superior administrative authority is competent to decide disputes relating to Anganwadi Helpers for smooth functioning of the work and the Anganwadi scheme is within his jurisdiction. The petitioner had produced a forged certificate, which amounts to playing fraud. Her engagement was therefore, rightly set aside. 7. The stand of the private opposite party is that the petitioner obtained a forged school leaving certificate and utilized the same. The husband of the private opposite party obtained information through the RTI Act and came to know of the fraud played by the petitioner. Since she secured the second highest votes, she therefore challenged the selection of the petitioner by filing appeal before the ADM. The petitioner being more than 42 years of age was not eligible to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper. 8. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner enclosing therewith birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Deaths, CHC, Rebena Nuagaon Page 6 of 10 wherein, her date of birth is mentioned has 07.03.1982. It is also stated that her Aadhaar card bears the same date of birth. It is the opposite party No. 4 who obtained a forged document which contains several interpolations, which is not worthy of any consideration. 9. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party makes similar argument as the State Counsel and submits that his client was engaged consequent upon disengagement of the petitioner and has been working till date continuously. 10. The first question that falls for consideration in the case is, whether the ADM was competent to hear the so called appeal filed by the opposite party No.4. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the prevalent guidelines issued by the government in Women and Child Development Department vide letter dated 24.11.1997. It is seen that except for laying down the eligibility criteria for selection and procedure for selection of a Helper, the guidelines do not mention anything about the remedy of appeal. There is no other provision or guideline providing Page 7 of 10 the remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by the selection and engagement of Anganwadi Helper. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the question of maintainability of the appeal was raised specifically by the petitioner referring to the government guidelines. The ADM answered the issue in the following manner:- “As regards maintainability of the case, this Court thinks that it is priority of the Court as an Administrative officer to settle the issues relating to Anganwadi centres under its jurisdiction for smooth running of the Centre which provides education, complementary nutrition to small children to build up their better future as well as improves the health and nutrition of the pregnant and lactating women. The case in hand relates to the Anganwadi helper whose work is to take care of the children as well as the pregnant and lactating women coming under that Anganwadi centre. Hence, this case has been taken up for hearing and order for timely disposal of the issue and smooth running of the centre.” 11. Strange reason! it is too well-settled that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to a nullity as the matter goes to the root of the cause. The Page 8 of 10 finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. The judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of the United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen1, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios and another2 and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitkibail Sopan Gujar and Others3 can be referred to in this regard. It is needless to mention that in the absence of legislation such as a statutory provision or rules, executive instructions shall govern the field. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare and 10 others4 may be referred to in this regard. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, as already stated, the power of appeal has not been conferred