Orissa High Court
Bhabanirani Mahanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opp. ... on 5 November, 2024
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14797 of 2019
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
Bhabanirani Mahanta ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. Rudra Narayan Parija &
S.K. Behera, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
M/s. P.K. Mohanty-2 & B.K. Padhi,
Advocates [ for O.P. No.5]
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
5 November, 2024
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking
the following prayer:
"The petitioner, therefore, prays your Lordship would
be graciously pleased to admit this case call for the
records and after hearing the parties allow the same,
issue writ/writs in nature of certiorari/mandamus
and/or any other/further writ/direction Quashing
Annexure-1 and be further pleased to quash the
selection of Opp.Party No.5 as Anganwadi worker in
Biswanathpur Mini Anganwadi Centre under Jaleswar
ICDS Project and a direction be made for engagement
of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in the said
Anganwadi Centre within a stipulated period."
2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to publication
of advertisement dated 24.04.2017 for engagement of
Anganwadi Workers of different centers including
Biswanathpur Mini-Anganwadi Center, the petitioner and the
opposite party no.5 submitted their candidatures along with
other applicants. In the selection process, the opposite party
no.5 having secured the highest mark was selected and the
petitioner, though secured more marks than her, was not
selected on the ground of non-submission of the resident
certificate at the time of verification. As such, the opposite
party no.5 was selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker in
which capacity she is continuing. The petitioner challenged the
selection of the private opposite party no.5 by filing an appeal
before the ADM, Balasore being Anganwadi Appeal No.3 of
2018. By order dated 30.07.2019, the appeal was dismissed.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ
application with the prayer as quoted above.
3. In dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner,
the ADM took note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted
a residential certificate, wherein the name of her father was
mentioned, who admittedly is a resident of a different village,
i.e. Chudamanipur. Subsequently, after the cut-off date, the
petitioner filed another resident certificate wherein the name of
her husband has been indicated. In both the residential
certificates, the residence of the petitioner has been mentioned
as 'Biswanathpur', but in view of the discrepancy as noted
above as also submission of the certificate after the cut-off
date, the ADM held that the same could not have been
considered as the authority does not have the power to relax
the cut-off date.
4. Heard Mr. R.N. Parija, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State; and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for private opposite party No.5.
5. Mr. Parija would submit that the petitioner had
submitted the resident certificate along with her application,
wherein her residence is mentioned as 'Biswanathpur', which
admittedly comes within the service area of the Anganwadi
Center in question. However, because of the inadvertent
mention of the name of her father instead of her husband in
the said certificate, the petitioner obtained a corrected
certificate mentioning the name of her husband and showing
her to be a resident of Biswanathpur. Mr. Parija submits that
except for mentioning the name of her husband there was no
other change in the residence certificate and since the
petitioner had submitted the residence certificate along with
her application form, the same ought to have been considered.
According to Mr. Parija, even if the first certificate submitted by
her is accepted, it proves that she is a resident of
Biswanathpur, which comes within the service area of the
Anganwadi Center in question. He also argues that there is no
law which prohibits a married woman to be identified by her
father after her marriage.
6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate,
referring to the affidavit filed by the ADM-opposite party no.3
submits that as per fresh R.I. enquiry it has been found that
the petitioner has been residing at Biswanathpur since 2015
after her marriage to Satrughana Mahanta of the said village.
7. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for
private opposite party submits that the parental home of the
petitioner is village Chudamanipur and therefore, the certificate
said to have been submitted by the petitioner along with her
application form cannot be treated as correct since it mentions
her residence as Biswanathpur. Since her father does not have
any residence in village Biswanathpur, said certificate could
not have been accepted. Mr. Mohanty further argues that as
per the own admission of the petitioner, the first certificate was
incorrect for which she sought for a corrected certificate.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
going through the record, this Court finds that the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed only on consideration
of the fact that the so called genuine residential certificate was
submitted on 14.05.2017, which is after the cut-off date i.e.,
08.05.2017. Copy of the application form submitted by the
petitioner obtained through OCAC and enclosed to the affidavit
filed by the ADM reveals that the petitioner has mentioned her
marital status as 'Unmarried' and mentions her place of
residence as 'Biswanathpur'. Further, she has mentioned the
land record details indicating the Khata number as 5 without
mentioning any plot number. The report dated 02.08.2024 of
the Revenue Inspector, Olmara shows the genealogy of the
family of the petitioner's husband. The R.O.R of Khata No.5
has also been enclosed which shows the same to have been
recorded jointly in the names of several persons including the
name of Uchit Mohanta, who happens to be the grandfather of
the petitioner's husband. It has been argued that the
mentioning of marital status as unmarried in the application
form is an inadvertent mistake, which would be evident from
the fact that she has mentioned the Khata number of the land
belonging to her husband's family as also mentioned her
residence as 'Biswanathpur'.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
going through the materials on record carefully, this Court
finds that the matter has not really been enquired into deeply
by the ADM at the time of hearing of the appeal, which, as
already stated, appears to have been disposed of taking into
consideration the submission of the second resident certificate
by the petitioner after the cut-off date. No real effort appears to
have been made to ascertain the residential status of the
petitioner as on the date of submission of the application.
Further, even if the subsequent certificate is to be ignored,
what would be the effect of the first certificate submitted by the
petitioner vis-à-vis her residence has also not been considered
by the ADM.
10. Since these are all factual aspects, this Court
exercising writ jurisdiction would ordinarily not be inclined to
enter into the same. This Court therefore, is of the considered
view that ends of justice would be better served if the matter is
remitted to the ADM for disposal afresh taking into
consideration all aspects of the issue involved, i.e., to determine
whether the petitioner's claim of being a resident within the
service area of the center in question is acceptable. The parties
are directed to appear before the ADM on 26th November, 2024,
on which date the ADM shall fix a date for hearing of the appeal
afresh. It is needless to mention that all concerned shall be
granted proper opportunity of hearing and the appeal shall be
disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of
two months from the date of first appearance. It is further
made clear that the ADM shall not be influenced by any
observations made by this Court in the present order.
11. With the above observation and direction, the writ
application is disposed of.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 5th November, 2024/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Date: 11-Nov-2024 18:22:06
