The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.42775 of 2023 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Fulamani Munda … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Partha Sarthi Das, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A For Opp.Party No.6 : Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 16.5.2025. JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.4.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 1 of 13 (ADM), Keonjhar (Opp.Party No.3), in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.3/2022 dismissing the said appeal filed by her. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an advertisement was issued on 16.3.2022 by the CDPO, Champua (Opp.Party No.5) for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of different Anganwadi Centres including Barpada Mini Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner and three other persons applied pursuant to such advertisement. Two candidates, including the Petitioner, belong to S.T. category while one belonged to OBC category. Opp.Party No.6, who was selected belongs to S.C. category. The Petitioner’s grievance is that it being specifically mentioned in the advertisement that S.T. candidates would be given preference, the selection committee wrongly engaged Opp. Party No.6 as Anganwadi Worker on 17.6.2022. However, prior to that, the Petitioner apprehending such irregularity, had submitted a representation addressed to the Collector, Keonjhar (Opp. Party No.2), but the same was not considered. The Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 2 of 13 therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1565/2020, which was disposed of by order dtd.4.7.2022 directing her to prefer appeal before the A.D.M., Keonjhar. Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred the above mentioned appeal. After considering the contentions raised and on perusal of the factual report submitted by the Sub-Collector and the CDPO, as also on hearing, the ADM dismissed the appeal by refusing to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee. The Petitioner contends that the selection of Opp. Party No.6 is contrary to the advertisement as well as the guidelines dtd.2.5.2007, which provides that in all Tribal Sub-plan areas, only S.T. candidates are to be selected as Anganwadi Workers and only in the event of non-availability of such candidates, a S.C. candidate can be appointed. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer; “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 3 of 13 that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to; (i) admit and allow this Writ Application; (ii) quash the Order, dated 18.04.2023, passed in AWW Appeal Case No.03 of 2022, by Opp. party No.3 by concurrently holding the same as bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and thereby direct the present Opp.Party No.5 to appoint the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Barapada Mini Anganwadi Centre under Uchabali G.P. in the District of Keonjhar for the interest of justice; (iii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO admitting the fact that in response to the advertisement, four candidates had submitted applications including the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.6. The Petitioner and one Lipi Munda belong to S.T. W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 4 of 13 category, while the Opp. Party No.6 belongs to S.C. category. It is also admitted that the Selection
Legal Reasoning
Committee is bound to choose S.T. candidates first, but it selected Opp. Party No.6 as per her merit and not as per her caste and category. Moreover, the other S.T. candidate namely, Lipi Munda had also secured more marks than the Petitioner. On such facts, the order of the ADM was sought to be justified. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. P.S. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. A.P.Bose, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.6. 5. At the outset, the question of locus standi of the Petitioner to challenge the selection was raised inasmuch as the Petitioner admittedly had secured less marks than the other S.T. candidate and therefore, even if her contention as raised in the Writ Petition would be accepted, she would not be entitled to the post, rather the other S.T. candidate having secured more marks would be selected. As such, it was W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 5 of 13 contended that the Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection. In this context, Mr. Das would argue that the other S.T. candidate Lipi Munda, even though secured more marks than the Petitioner, chose not to challenge the selection, which admittedly is contrary to the guidelines dtd.2.5.2007, for reasons best known to her. So in the absence of any challenge by the said Lipi Munda, the illegality committed by the Selection Committee cannot be allowed to subsist. 6. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, would submit that the contentions raised by the Petitioner as above, depends on whether the decision of the Selection Committee is held to be valid or not. In case it is held to be valid, the Petitioner would have no claim. Even if it is not held to be valid then Lipi Munda can stake a claim for engagement but not the Petitioner. 7. Mr. A.P.Bose, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.6 makes similar argument as the State counsel. W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 6 of 13 8. It is true that there were two S.T. candidates, one being the Petitioner and the other being Lipi Munda. From the valuation sheets of the candidates, it is seen that the Petitioner secured 45.50% marks while Lipi Munda 50.17% marks. Thus as between the S.T. candidates, Lipi Munda was eligible to be selected. However, said Lipi Munda chose not to challenge the selection whereas the Petitioner claims to have submitted a representation challenging the selection at the earlier instance and also preferred appeal, being permitted by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. If this Court finds that the selection committee had acted in a manner contrary to the guidelines as contended by the Petitioner, the whole process of selection would have to be set aside. While it is true that in such event an automatic direction to engage the Petitioner cannot be issued as she admittedly secured less marks than the others candidate, but then in the absence of any challenge posed by the said Lipi Munda, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator, if it finds truth in the contentions raised with regard to the procedure W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 7 of 13 followed by the selection committee. It is possible that the said Lipi Munda may not be interested for the post. The petitioner, on the other hand, has raised her grievance right from the beginning. It would therefore be iniquitous to throw out challenge on the ground of
Decision
locus standi. The Writ Petition is therefore, held to be maintainable. 9. Coming to the merits of the case, as already stated, the Petitioner claims that the selection was done in a manner contrary to the guidelines dtd.2.5.2007. In this regard, Mr. Das draws attention of this Court firstly, to the advertisement dtd.16.3.2022 and the guidelines dtd.02.5.2007. He submits that the Mini Anganwadi Centre being in a Tribal Sub-plan area, the advertisement specifically provided that S.T. candidates should be given preference. Only in the event of non-availability of S.T. Candidates, S.C. candidates can be considered. He also refers to the guidelines dtd.2.5.2007 in this regard. Since two S.T. candidates were available, there W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 8 of 13 was no question of considering candidates from any other category. 10. Mr. S.N.Patnaik as well as Mr. Bose both argue that the selection was made on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates. The guideline provides that in case no suitable S.T. candidate is available, the selection is open to S.C. candidates. In the instant case, Opp. Party No.6 admittedly secured more marks in comparison to all the candidates and was therefore, righty selected being suitable in all respects. 11. In the advertisement, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1, it is clearly mentioned that S.T. candidates would be given preference and in case no S.T. candidate applies, the applications of S.C. candidates would be considered. This is entirely in consonance with paragraph-3(b) of the Revised Guideline dtd.2.5.2007, which reads as follows; “3(b) In all Tribal Sub-plan (TSP) Areas only ST candidates will be selected as Anganwadi Workers. In case no suitable ST candidates are available in the AWC W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 9 of 13 area then it may be made open to SC candidates also.” Therefore, there is no doubt that when S.T. candidates have applied and their applications are considered valid, there is no question of considering the application from any other candidate. 12. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the ADM has referred to the above provision, but held that both SC and ST candidates from the Gram Panchayat areas will be considered as per their merit list, in case no S.T. candidate is available from that Anganwadi Centre area. The A.D.M. appears to have been swayed away by the factual reports submitted by the CDPO that both S.T. candidates did not come to the top of the merit list as they secured less marks in comparison to the selected candidates. For the reasons indicated hereafter, the above reasoning adopted by the ADM is entirely fallacious and misconceived. Reference to the quoted paragraph of the guidelines makes it clear that in case ‘no suitable S.T. candidate is available’ then only the selection will be open to the S.C. candidate. W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 10 of 13 This, plainly understood, means that if S.T. candidates are available, then their inter-se suitability is to be considered. It does not mean that the suitability of S.T. candidates will be compared with that of non-S.T. candidates. If such would be the interpretation, it would be contrary to the whole object of the provision which requires that in all Tribal Sub-plan areas only S.T. candidates will be selected as Anganwadi Workers. In the instant case, there being two S.T. candidates, the selection committee ought to have considered the relative merit of both instead of bringing in a non-S.T. candidate into the fray. 13. This Court therefore finds considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that the selection process was indeed flawed. The impugned order must therefore, be held to be unsustainable. 14. The question is, what relief can be granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, she secured less marks than the other S.T. candidate Lipi Munda who has not come forward to challenge the selection of Opp. Party No.6. Since this Court has found that the selection was not W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 11 of 13 in consonance with the guidelines, allowing the same to subsist would tantamount to perpetuating the illegality. Therefore, though this Court is not inclined to direct the authorities concerned to straight away engage the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker by setting aside the engagement of Opp. Party No.6, the selection committee can be directed to revisit the selection and to offer engagement to the other S.T. candidate. In case, she declines or does not come forward to accept the offer, the same can be given to the Petitioner. 15. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner; (i) The impugned order passed by the A.D.M. is hereby set aside. (ii) The selection of Opp. Party No.6 as Anganwadi Worker is also set aside. (iii) The Selection Committee is directed to revisit the selection and offer engagement to the most suitable S.T. candidate. W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 12 of 13 (iv) In case, the most suitable S.T. candidate is not available or does not come forward to accept the offer, the next suitable ST candidate shall be given engagement. …………….……………. 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: 16-May-2025 12:25:16 W.P.(C) No. 42775 of 2023 Page 13 of 13