(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India) Puspanjali Sahoo … v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 40116 OF 2023 (Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India) Puspanjali Sahoo …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. D.N. Rath, A.K. Saa and S. Das, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate [OP Nos.1 to 4] M/s. M. Mishra, S. Swain and S.K. Sahoo, Advocates [OP No.5] _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25th April, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking the following relief:- it “Under the above circumstance, is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by directing the opposite party no.4 to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of in Page 1 of 11 Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat within a stipulated period.
Decision
And this Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to quash the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the opposite party no.4 vide Annexure- 9 to the writ petition. And this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any further order/order or direction/ directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 17.05.2017 by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Rasulpur in the district of Jajpur for selection of Anganwadi Workers of several centres, the petitioner submitted application for Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat. In the selection process, one Aparna Samal was selected and engaged. The selection of Aparna Samal was challenged by the petitioner in AWW Misc. (Appeal) Case No.02 of 2019 before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. After considering the contentions raised and the materials on record, the appellate authority allowed the appeal by cancelling the Page 2 of 11 process of selection with direction to select Anganwadi Worker out of the merit list or to make selection afresh, if no candidate is available. Said order was challenged by Aparna Samal before this Court in WP(C) No.6723 of 2020. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.10.2023, basing on the report submitted by the Tahasildar, observed that Aparna Samal not being a resident of the service area, the order of the appellate authority was not liable to be interfered with. It was, therefore, directed that the person securing 2nd highest mark is to be given appointment. Said order was further tested in an intra- court appeal being WA No. 2655 of 2023 filed by Aparna Samal. But the order came to be confirmed vide order dated 24.11.2023. While the matter stood thus and the petitioner was expecting to be issued with an order of appointment having secured 2nd highest mark, found that the CDPO arbitrarily added 15 marks to the marks secured by private opposite party no.5, thereby making it 60. Since opposite party no.5 had never submitted any +2 certificate nor caste certificate to substantiate her claim, such selection, according to the petitioner, is illegal, as, as per the advertisement, no document Page 3 of 11 could be considered after the date of submission of the application. As per the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the “RTI Act”), the opposite party no.5 had not mentioned about the +2 qualification or her caste in her application form, nor submitted any documentary evidence in support thereof. The opposite party no.5 was, however, engaged vide order dated 07.12.2023. On such facts, the writ application has been filed with the prayer quoted earlier. 3. The stand of the State opposite parties is that the original mark compilation list/register signed by the selection committee shows that the opposite party no.5 secured 2nd highest mark and accordingly she was selected. There is no question of addition or deletion of marks. The documents obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act were issued by the then CDPO, but the caste certificate and higher qualification certificate were taken into consideration by the selection committee at the time of holding the original selection for the first time. Page 4 of 11 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, inter alia, stating that since the opposite party no.5 had not submitted the relevant certificates while submitting her application, taking the same into consideration by the selection committee at the time of selection for the first time, is entirely illegal as per the settled position of law that documents not submitted at the time of submission of application cannot be taken into consideration. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the private opposite party no.5 stating therein that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and has passed +2 Arts Examination, for which she got additional marks and as such secured the 2nd highest marks among all the candidates. Further, she had submitted her application enclosing all the relevant documents by 03.06.2017, the last date for submission of application. The select list was notified inviting objections, vide notice dated 06.06.2017, but no one, including the petitioner, submitted any objection at that time, for which she is estopped from raising any objection now. It is also Page 5 of 11 stated that since opposite party no.5 had submitted her documents, it is possible that some manipulation was made. 6. Heard Shri D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Shri Manoranjan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5. 7. Shri Rath would argue that the original file of the office of the CDPO containing the applications submitted by all candidates, as produced by the State Counsel, clearly shows that opposite party no.5 had not submitted +2 pass and caste certificates along with her application. As such, she could not have been permitted to submit such certificates later, if at all. Under such circumstances, adding 5 marks in +2 qualification and 10 marks towards SC category by the selection committee, is entirely illegal and unjustified. 8. Shri Pattanaik, learned State Counsel submits that from the original file it is seen that the application submitted by opposite party no.5 was not accompanied by the +2 certificate or her caste certificate. However, the selection Page 6 of 11 committee, considering her higher qualification and her social category, awarded extra marks as per the guidelines. 9. Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for private opposite party no.5 submits that firstly, the petitioner, never having objected to the select list at the relevant time, cannot be permitted to agitate the issue at this belated stage. Her grievance was directed against the selection of Aparna Samal, which was found to be illegal by the appellate authority and confirmed by this Court. This Court specifically directed to select the candidate securing the highest marks after disengagement of Aparna Samal. Since opposite party no.5 secured the highest marks, she was rightly selected. The allegations made by the petitioner are entirely baseless. It is possible that some manipulation of records may have been made subsequently at the instance of the petitioner to question the selection of opposite party no.5. 10. As already stated, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the writ application filed earlier by the petitioner, after setting aside the engagement of Aparna Samal, issued direction Page 7 of 11 for engagement of the person securing the next highest mark. The petitioner claims to have secured 58.26 marks and the opposite party no.5, 45 marks. It is not disputed that 5 marks were added for +2 qualification and 10 marks for SC category to the marks of opposite party no.5, thus, taking the total tally to 60. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that extra marks could not have been awarded to opposite party no.5, since she had not submitted the documents in support of the same along with her application. The State Counsel, who produced the original file containing all the applications, fairly submitted that the application submitted by opposite party no.5 was not accompanied by any +2 or caste certificate. In fact, being directed by this Court, the incumbent CDPO has filed an affidavit on 04.02.2025 before this Court wherein the following is stated in paragraph 4:- the That, record reveals that at “4. time of submission of application form for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter of Pramod Sethi has neither mentioned about submission of Caste Certificate in the application form nor submitted any Caste Certificate. Further, the tabulation register reveals that the Selection Committee has awarded 10 marks to Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter Pramod Sethi for submission of Caste Certificate. Since this deponent was not working as CDPO, Rasulpur ICDS Page 8 of 11 Project at the time of selection of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, she has no knowledge as to under which circumstances, 10 marks has been awarded to Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter Pramod Sethi in the heading "Caste".” This is sought to be countered by the learned counsel for opposite party no.5 by submitting that the application form said to have been submitted by opposite party no.5 contains some manipulation. Since she had passed +2 Arts and belongs to the Scheduled Caste by birth, there is no reason as to why she would not fill up those columns in the application form. 11. From what has been narrated before, it is evident that if the affidavit of the incumbent CDPO is to be taken into consideration, it would seal the fate of opposite party no.5, inasmuch as, it proves that she had not submitted at least the caste certificate along with her application form. The advertisement and the guidelines are clear that a document not submitted at the time of submitting the application, cannot be taken into consideration subsequently. Such being the case, it is not understood as to how 10 marks could be added to the marks of the opposite party no.5 by the selection committee. Even assuming that it was on the basis of the certificate Page 9 of 11 produced by her at the time of selection, the same would still be contrary to the provisions of the guidelines as well as the advertisement. The opposite party no.5 has submitted a reply affidavit to the aforementioned affidavit filed by the CDPO, but simply by reiterating that some manipulation had been made in the copy of the application enclosed to the writ application as Annexure-8, and that nobody had objected to the list of candidates published by the selection community, the specific stand taken by the CDPO has not been rebutted or controverted. In view of the categorical admission by the State Counsel as well as the affidavit filed by the CDPO, which this Court finds no reason to disbelieve, it is evident that the selection committee committed illegality in awarding extra marks to the opposite party no.5. 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. Page 10 of 11 13. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-9 is hereby quashed. The opposite party-authorities are directed to issue order of engagement in favour of the petitioner without any further delay. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 25th April, 2025/ G.D.Samal,JR-cum-PS. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:03:03 Page 11 of 11