Orissa High Court
A.F.R. Gandharbi Pathrimali @ vs Collector on 20 June, 2024
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9523 of 2015
(Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
A.F.R. Gandharbi Pathrimali @
Manjulata Budek ... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector, Balangir &
others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Trilochan Nanda,
Advocate.
-versus-
For Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. A.R.Dash, A.G.A
For Opposite Party No.5: Mr. M.R. Samantaray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
20.6.2024.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has approached this Court
seeking the following relief;
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to consider the facts
stated in the writ petition, admit the same, issue
Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. parties to show
cause:-
(i) Why the order dtd.22.04.2015 passed by the
learned Addl. District Magistrate, Balangir in
AWW Appeal No.07 of 2011 shall not be
quashed.
(ii) Why the petitioner shall not be allowed to
continue as Anganwadi Worker of Dhumabhata-4
Anganwadi center in the district of Balangir.
If the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause then the rule may kindly be
made absolute.
And/or pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as
in duty bound shall ever pray."
2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an
advertisement issued on 24.7.2009 by the C.D.P.O.,
Belpada in the district of Bolangir (Opposite Party
No.4) for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in
different Anganwadi Centres, the Petitioner submitted
her application for the Anganwadi Centre at
Dhumabhata-4. The present Opposite Party No.5
(Sangeeta Budek) was also one of the applicants. The
Selection Committee found the Petitioner most suitable
among all candidates and accordingly she was selected
for engagement. Pursuant to such selection, the
Petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker and
joined as such on 31.3.2011. The present Opposite
Party No.5 filed an appeal being A.W.W. Appeal
No.7/2011 before the A.D.M., Bolangir challenging the
selection and engagement of the Petitioner on the
ground that she is not a resident of the service area of
the Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner contested the
appeal. The A.D.M. as per order dated 22.4.2015,
basing on the report of the Tahasildar, Belpada, held
that the Petitioner being a resident of Mandirpada of
village Dhumabhata is not a resident within the service
area of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre. As such the
appeal was allowed and the engagement of the
Petitioner was set aside. The Petitioner has approached
this Court impugning the order of the A.D.M., copy of
which is enclosed as Annexure-1.
3. Heard Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for
the Petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State. There is no
appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.5 despite
repeated calls.
4. Mr. Nanda would argue that Dhumabhata-4
Anganwadi Centre is comprised of as many as 7
'Padas' including Ranapada of which the Petitioner is a
permanent resident. In course of the selection process
also, her name was found in the Voter List of said
Ward and also in the Survey Register. Moreover, she
secured the highest marks. Thus, taking into
consideration all the above facts, the Petitioner was
rightly selected. The A.D.M. has himself accepted that
as per the Survey Register the Petitioner is a resident
of Ranapada which comes within the service area of
the concerned Anganwadi Centre. However, basing on
a purported inquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, it
was erroneously held that she is a resident of
Mandirpada coming under Dhumabhata-1 Anganwadi
Centre.
5. Mr.A.R.Dash, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate,
would argue that as per the guidelines, an applicant
has to be permanent resident of the service area of the
Anganwadi Centre in question. In the instant case, the
Tahasildar, Belpada, conducted an inquiry, which
revealed that the Petitioner is a resident of a different
service area and therefore, the ADM has rightly set
aside her selection as Anganwadi Worker.
6. Reading of the impugned order shows that
Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre includes 7 Padas
namely, Katakiapada, Mallikpada, Ranapada,
Malipada, Baidpada, Pathanpada and Luhurapada.
Nine candidates had applied for the post of Anganwadi
Worker. An objection being filed by the present
Opposite Party No.5 before the Selection Committee, a
meeting was conducted on 15.3.2011 in presence of
S.S.W.O., Patnagarh, Sarpanch, Ward Member and
villagers to enquire into the mater. The Survey Register
of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre of survey
conducted in the year 2011 shows that the name of the
Petitioner is at Sl. No.171. This, prima facie, shows
that the Petitioner is a resident of the service area of
Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre. The A.D.M.
however, has held that such survey was conducted
during the year, 2011 after selection of the Anganwadi
Worker. Nothing further has been stated as regards
the date of conduct of such survey. Further, the
Tahasildar, Belpada, appears to have submitted an
inquiry report. Copy of such inquiry report has not
been filed by either of the parties. In the said inquiry
report, it is stated that the Petitioner is a resident of
Mandirpada of village Dhumabhata, which comes
under another Anganwadi Centre, i.e. Anganwadi
Centre No.1. There is no definite material to show that
the Petitioner was not a resident of Ranapada in the
year 2011. The impugned order does not also
specifically mention that she was not a resident of
Ranapada at the time of selection. It is only during
pendency of the appeal that the Tahasildar, Belpada,
conducted an inquiry, which purportedly revealed that
she is a resident of the service area of another
Anganwadi Centre. Unless there is definite and
clear-cut evidence to show that the Petitioner is not a
resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in
question, her engagement as Anganwadi Worker
cannot ordinarily be questioned. Even accepting the
inquiry report of the Tahasildar for a moment, it only
raises the possibility that the Petitioner may have
shifted her residence to Mandirpada after her selection.
If such is the case, it would give rise to a different
cause of action for the concerned authorities to
proceed against her, but under no circumstances her
initial selection and engagement can be questioned.
This is being said for all the more reason as it is not
the case of Opposite Party No.5 that the petitioner is a
resident of Mandirpada and not Ranapada. This Court
further observes that the Petitioner has been working
as Anganwadi Worker ever since the date of
engagement on the strength of order passed by this
Court.
7. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts
and discussion made hereinbefore, this Court finds
that the finding of the A.D.M. regarding the residential
status of the Petitioner is not based on definite
evidence or material so as to justify setting aside her
selection and engagement. As such, the impugned
order is rendered unsustainable in the eye of law.
8. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 22.4.2015 passed by the
A.D.M., Balangir, in A.W.W. Appeal No.7/2011 under
Annexure-1 is hereby set aside.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
