The Orissa High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice B. R. Sarangi observed that if a mistake is committed by the authority, the same should be corrected when it is discovered. (Smt. Kaberi Behera v. State of Orissa and others.)
The bench noted that the meaning attached to the word mistake, that it is a misconception or error, which is unilateral or mutual, but it is always unintentional, and when it has been candidly stated that due to hearing.
In the present case, Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Nimapara issued an advertisement regarding the selection of Anganwadi Helper in different Anganwadi Centers of Nimapara Gram Panchayat. In the said advertisement, it was indicated to hold Mahila Sabha in all the centers, where intending women candidates were to remain present. It was also indicated therein that the candidate, who intends to apply for the post of Anganwadi Helper, should be a permanent resident of the Anganwadi Centre area, her age should not be less than 18 years, she should have the competency to manage the center, she should be liked by the villagers, should be able to read and write and should have shown her interest to work for the women and children of the locality.
The petitioner participated in the process of selection for the post of Anganwadi Helper. Among candidates, the educational qualification of the petitioner being highest, majority of women selected the petitioner to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper. Since the petitioner was selected, she submitted an independent representation before District Magistrate, requesting to look into the matter, which was marked to the CDPO for doing the needful, but no action was taken. Due to non-consideration of the grievance made by the petitioner, she approached this Court.
Contention of the parties
The counsel for the State contended that no candidate named Gitanjali Swain had ever participated in the Mahila Sabha held for selection of Anganwadi Helper in respect to Torabanga Anganwadi Centre. But, due to mishearing by the supervisor, the name of Mintanjali Swain was wrongly written as Gitanjali Swain and, accordingly, the appointment order was issued in the name of Gitanjali Swain. But, when the said mistake was realized, it was rectified subsequently. As such, said supervisor has also filed an affidavit stating that due to her heard of hearing, the name of Mitanjali Swai was written by her as Gitanjali Swain in the proceeding meeting and that as soon as this fact came to her knowledge she rectified the same giving correct name as Mitanjali Swain in place of Gitanjali Swain. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by indicating the correct name of the opposite party. Consequentially, the grievance made by the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law and, as such, the ADM has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner in the due application of mind. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party contended that no candidate named Gitanjali Swain had ever participated in the process of selection. Rather, opposite party Mitanjali Swain participated in the process of selection and she, having been supported by a large number of women in the Mahila Sabha, was declared to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper of Torabanga Anganwadi Centre. If a wrong was committed by the supervisor in recording the name of “Gitanjali Swain” in place of “Mitanjali Swain”, that itself cannot disentitle her to continue as Anganwadi Helper and the petitioner cannot take advantage of such mistake and claim that she should be engaged as Anganwadi Helper in place of the opposite party. More so, the petitioner had not impleaded Mitanjali Swain as a party in her earlier writ petition, rather she had impleaded therein Gitanjali Swain as an opposite party, even though she knew that a mistake was committed on the part of the supervisor, who had heard of hearing, and when the same was brought to her notice, she rectified the same indicating Mitanjali Swain in place of Gitanjali Swain. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity was committed in the process of selection of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Torabanga Anganwadi Centre. More so, there is no such allegation made in the writ petition with regard to illegality or irregularity committed in the process of selection of Anganwadi Helper of the Torabanga Anganwadi Centre. Thereby, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
Courts observation and judgment
The court taking into consideration the meaning attached to the word “mistake” and referring to some judgments said, “as mentioned above, that it is a misconception or error, which is unilateral or mutual, but it is always unintentional, and when it has been candidly stated that due to heard of hearing it is the supervisor who inadvertently mentioned the name of Gitanjali Swain in place of Mitanjali Swain and, as such, there is no such person Gitanjali Swain available in the village, consequentially, correct name has been indicated as Mitanjali Swain, thereby, no illegality or irregularity can be said to have been committed by the authority by issuing engagement order in favour of Mitanjali Swain, who had secured highest support in the Mahila Sabha to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Torabanga Anganwadi Centre.”
The court noted, "Further in view of such position this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the ADM, Puri in Anganwadi Misc. Case No. 2 of 2010 vide Annexure-9 series, particularly when the selection and engagement of opposite party no.5 have been done in consonance with the guidelines issued by the government.”
The Court after noting the same came to a final decision that the writ petition, has no merits and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
