Orissa High Court
Sujata Sahu vs State Of Orissa & Others on 4 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 5722 OF 2018
AND
W.P.(C) NO.8401 OF 2018
AFR In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-----------
IN W.P.(C) NO.5722 OF 2018
Sujata Sahu ........... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa & others ............ Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Amitav Tripathy,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.P. Mohapatra,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
(O.Ps. No.1 to 4)
Mr. S.P. Das-A, Advocate
(O.P.5)
IN W.P.(C) NO.8401 OF 2018
Smt. Mamatarani Gantayat ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others ......... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Mohanty & S.P. Das,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.P. Mohapatra,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
(O.Ps.No.1 to 4)
Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate
(O.P. 5)
------------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECIDED ON : 04.03.2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. Sujata Sahu, who was respondent no.2 in
Misc. Appeal Case No.2 of 2017 before Addl. District
Magistrate, Ganjam, has filed W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2018 with
the following relief:
"The petitioner above named, therefore, pray that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule
nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to
why the order dated 25.01.2018 under Annexure-1 shall
not be quashed;
If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, Your Lordships may be pleased to
quash the order dated 25.01.2018 under Annexure-1;"
2. Mamatarani Gantayat, who was appellant in M.C.
Appeal Case No.2 of 2017 before Addl. District Magistrate,
Ganjam, has filed W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 with the following
relief:
"Under the above facts and circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to admit the writ petition, this petitioner humbly prays
before this Hon'ble Court to quash the order of O.P. No-3
directing to make notification clearly mentioning the
location of the area of AWW Centre and selection thereof
afresh.
And this Hon'ble Court may issue necessary direction to
engage the present petitioner in the said post as she was
the only applicant for the post of AWW Centre of Main
Road-2 (Gopalpur).
And further be pleased to pass such other writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions, as would be deemed
fit and proper in favour favour of the petitioner by this
Hon'ble Court."
3. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the
common judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case
No.2 of 2017, they have been heard together and are
disposed of by this common judgment.
4. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that
Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Rangeilunda
issued an advertisement on 15.12.2016 inviting applications
from the eligible candidates for engagement of Anganwadi
Workers in respect of five Anganwadi Centres and the
present case relates to Sl. No.3, Main Road-2 (Gopalpur)
Anganwadi Centre, the service area of which covers
Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC Colony & Hill top
streets, which according to central survey is in between 1st
house-Bichindra Charan Sahu and last house- Bijaya Kumar
Sahu.
4.1 In response to such advertisement, the
petitioners in both the writ petitions applied for the said post,
selection to which was conducted taking into consideration
the guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha in
Woman and Child Development Department vide letter
No.145/W&CD dated 02.05.2007. As per Clause-2 of the
advertisement, a candidate must have belonged to
Anganwadi Centre area and, as such, she has to produce
resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar within six
months. Minimum qualification was prescribed as
matriculation and age should be within 18 to 42 years as on
01.01.2016. As per clause-10 of the advertisement, if the
applicant is an ST/SC/P.H/Orphan/widow/destitute
unmarried girl (above 35 years of age), necessary certificates
to that extent would be produced. Apart from these, all other
conditions of the advertisement were to be satisfied in
inconsonance with the guidelines issued by the Government.
By following due procedure of selection, Sujata Sahu
(petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5722 of 2018) was selected and
engaged as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2
(Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre.
4.2 The selection and engagement of said Sujata
Sahu (petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5722 of 2018) was challenged
by Mamatarani Gantayat (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8401 of
2018) before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6759 of 2017 and this
Court, while disposing of the said writ petition vide order
dated 24.02.2017, directed that if the petitioner therein filed
an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of
fifteen days from the date of passing of the order, the
appellate authority would do well to dispose of the same,
after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties,
within a period of six months. In compliance thereof,
Mamatarani Gantayat filed M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017
before the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, who, vide
order dated 25.01.2018, disposed of the said appeal holding
that the advertisement published vide no.858 dated
15.12.2016 for Anganwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2
(Gopalpur) was defective, as there was no specific mention
that the street, where Sujata Sahu was residing, i.e., Bazar
Sahi, also comes within the service area of the Anganwadi
Centre in question. Thereby, he cancelled the said
advertisement dated 15.12.2016, so far it relates to Main
Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre, so also the selection of
Sujata Sahu as Anganwadi Worker, and directed the CDPO,
Rangeilunda to make the notification clearly mentioning the
location of the area of Anganwadi Centre afresh and make
the selection afresh accordingly keeping in view of
government guidelines. Hence these applications.
5. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner-Sujata Sahu in W.P.(C) No.5722
of 2018 contended that the notification issued on 15.12.2016
by the CDPO, Rangeilunda clearly indicates that the Main
Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre service area covers
Gandhinagar, Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC Colony & Hill top
streets, which according to central survey is in between 1st
house-Bichindra Charan Sahu and last house- Bijaya Kumar
Sahu, within which Bazar Sahi is also coming, though the
same has not been specifically mentioned in the notification.
As the service area has been defined in column-4 of the
advertisement, there is no dispute or ambiguity with regard
to the fact that Bazar Sahi comes within the service area of
Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre. It is further
contended that each and every street (sahi) need not be
included in the advertisement. Rather, the mention so made,
that the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question,
according to central survey, stretched from the 1st house-
Bichindra Charan Sahu till the last house-Bijaya Kumar
Sahu, clearly indicates that Bazar Sahi, where house of
Sujata Sahu situates, comes in between the same. Thereby,
the selection has been done by the authority in accordance
with the guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha.
Consequentially, the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, cancelling the
selection of Sujata Sahu as Anwanwadi Worker in respect of
Main Road-2 (Gopalpur), without considering the above fact,
cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his
contentions, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Sanjulata Behera v.
Additional District Magistrate (W.A. No.420 of 2015
disposed of on 20.08.2015).
6. Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of Mamatarani Gantayat-petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.8401 of 2018 contended that the Additional District
Magistrate, Ganjam has committed gross error by giving
direction to go for fresh selection on the plea that Anganwadi
Centre area has not been properly defined in the
advertisement issued. But fact remains, by indicating the
area itself in the advertisement, the selection has been done
and in the event Sujata Sahu does not come within the
Anganwadi Centre area, Mamatarani Gantayat being stood at
sl.no.2 of the select list, she should be given appointment
instead of going for fresh advertisement. Thereby, seeks for
quashing of the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case
No.02 of 2017.
7. Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional
Government Advocate argued with vehemence supporting the
order impugned passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017 and contended
that since Bazar Sahi was not indicated in the advertisement,
the selection of Sujata Sahu cannot sustain in the eye of law.
As such, the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam has
rightly issued direction to go for fresh selection. Therefore, he
seeks for dismissal of both the writ petitions.
8. This Court heard Mr. Amitav Tripathy,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Sujata Sahu in
W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2018, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for Mamatarani Gantayat-petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.8401 of 2018 and Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for State opposite parties in
both the cases. Since it is a certiorari proceeding, learned
counsel for the parties consented to dispose of the aforesaid
writ petitions at the stage of admission without filing counter
and rejoinder affidavits in the case itself.
9. The facts narrated above are undisputed.
Admittedly, the CDPO, Rangeilunda had issued a notification
dated 15.12.2016 for selection of Anganwadi workers in
respect of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre so also
four other Anganwadi Centres. In both the writ petitions
dispute relates to Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi
Centre, the service area of which includes Gandhinagar,
Mother Teresa Nagar, NAC colony & Hill top, and according
to central survey it stretches from 1st house-Bichindra
Charan Sahu to the last house-Bijaya Kumar Sahu. The
selection committee meeting was held on 27.03.2017 under
the chairmanship of the Sub-Collector, Berhampur to
consider the case of only two applicants, namely, Sujata
Sahu and Mamatarani Gantayat, who had filed their
applications, pursuant to advertisement, for the post of
Anganwadi Worker in respect of Main Road-2(Gopalpur)
Anganwadi Centre. But, on the basis of objection filed by
Mamatarani Gantayat and one M. Pabitra Kumar Patra, the
Sub-Collector-cum-Chairman of the selection committee
ordered for a joint enquiry to be conducted by SSSO & Lady
Supervisor, who, in turn, reported that Sujata Sahu was
residing in the Main Road-2 Anganwadi Centre area, but did
not care to mention the exact location, where Sujata Sahu
was residing, out of the four locations, i.e. Gandhi Nagar,
Mother Teressa Nagar, NAC Colony and Hill Top area, which
have been mentioned in the notification to be the service
area. Admittedly, Bazar Sahi comes within the Main Road-2
(Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre service area. Therefore, on the
basis of joint enquiry report, the selection committee selected
Sujata Sahu, who had secured highest mark among two
candidates, as Anganwadi Worker of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur)
Anganwadi Centre.
10. The appellate authority, namely, the
Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam had also directed the
CDPO, Rangeilunda to make an enquiry and report about the
residence of Sujata Sahu. Consequentially, the CDPO,
Rangeilunda caused an enquiry and submitted a report,
along with the map showing the location of residence of
Sujata Sahu and other locations mentioned in the
notification. In such report, the CDPO has mentioned that
the house of Sujata Sahu belonged to Bazar Sahi, which
comes within the Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre
area. But said Bazar Sahi does not find place in the
notification as one of the locations of the service area. It is
clearly stated in the notification that the service area relates
to Gandhi Nagar, Mother Teressa Nagar, NAC Colony and Hill
Top area. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the appellate authority cancelled the selection without
appreciating the facts in proper perspective. Accordingly, in
the notification non-mentioning of Bazar Sahi, which is well
within the Main Road-2 (Gopalpur) Anganwadi Centre area,
cannot disentitle Sujata Sahu to continue as Anganwadi
Worker. The joint enquiry report submitted before the
selection committee read with enquiry report submitted
before the appellate authority conjointly indicate that Sujata
Sahu is residing within the Anganwadi Centre area, as per
description made in the advertisement issued, which
contains that service area, according to central survey,
stretches from 1st house- Bichindra Charan Sahu till the last
house- Bijaya Kumar Sahu. Once Sujata Sahu resides within
the Anganwadi Centre area, even if the location, i.e., Bazar
Sahi, where she resides, is not mentioned in the
advertisement, since on enquiry the fact finding authorities
have come to a conclusion that she is residing within the
same area, the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam should
not have passed the order impugned cancelling her selection
and issuing direction to go for fresh selection. Thereby, the
order dated 25.01.2018 so passed by the Additional District
Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case No.02 of 2017
cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be
quashed and is accordingly quashed.
11. By virtue of interim order dated 23.04.2018
passed in Misc. Case No.4876 of 2018 arising out of W.P.(C)
No.5722 of 2018 direction was given that any development
pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-1 shall remain
subject to the result of the writ petition. Since this Court
comes to a definite conclusion that the selection of Sujata
Sahu is well justified, as she evidently resides within the
Anganwadi Centre service area, pursuant to joint enquiry
report submitted by SSSO & Lady Supervisor and
subsequent report submitted by the CDPO, she shall
continue as Anganwadi Worker of Main Road-2 (Gopalpur)
Anganwadi Centre, against which post she has been duly
selected and appointed.
12. In the result, therefore, W.P.(C) No. 5722 of
2018 is allowed. But, so far as W.P.(C) No.8401 of 2018 is
concerned, as the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal Case
No.02 of 2017 has been quashed and Sujata Sahu has been
allowed to continue as Anganwadi Worker, the said writ
petition filed by Mamatarani Gantayat does not merit
consideration and accordingly the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
.............................
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 4th March, 2021, Alok/GDS
