Orissa High Court
Tapaswini Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 15 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9811 of 2012
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
---------------
Tapaswini Pradhan ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Arijeet Mishra, Advocate.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.S. Routray,
Addl. Standing Counsel
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
15.04.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Notice in this case was issued on 28.05.2012. While
the State counsel accepted notice on behalf of Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 5, notice on Opposite Party No.6 was directed to be
issued by registered post with AD. The office note indicates that
notice on Opposite Party No.6 was validly served as evident
from the AD received by the office. Despite lapse of such a long
time, the State has not filed any counter. This being a case of
the year 2012, this Court is not inclined to grant any further
time. The writ application is therefore, taken up for hearing.
2. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. The facts of the case are that pursuant to notification
dated 15.09.2010 by the CDPO, Dampada for engagement of
Anganwadi Helper of different Anganwadi Centers, the
petitioner applied for Kalaranta Anganwadi Center. In the
meeting of the Mahila Sabha held for selection on 31.12.2010
no selection could be made because of disturbance created by
several persons. One of the applicants, namely, Padmabati Dei,
who is presently impleaded as Opposite Party no.6, filed a writ
application before this Court being W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2011. By
order dated 15.02.2011, this Court disposed of the writ
application directing the Sub-Collector to consider the
representation of the said petitioner. Pursuant to such order,
the Sub-Collector, Banki directed the CDPO to hold meeting for
selection of Anganwadi Helper, if necessary, taking assistance of
the police. Accordingly, the selection was held on 26.08.2011, in
which, the petitioner being the only candidate present, was
selected as per the guidelines. The Opposite Party No.6 again
preferred another writ application being W.P.(C) No.20035 of
2011, which was disposed of directing the Collector to dispose
of her representation within four weeks. Pursuant to such
order, the Collector, by order dated 16.03.2012, in disposing of
the representation of the Opposite Party No.6, set aside the
selection of the petitioner on the ground that the Opposite Party
No.6, being a poor widow was a deserving candidate for the
post.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the Mahila Sabha held on 26.08.2011, the petitioner was the
only candidate. She was also selected strictly as per the
guidelines issued by the Government. No other candidate
including Opposite Party No.6 had appeared. As such,
consideration of their candidatures was not justified.
5. Mr. Routray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel would
submit that as per the guidelines a widow is to be preferred over
other candidates and therefore, the Collector rightly set aside
the engagement of the petitioner.
6. Reference to the guidelines issued by the Government in W
& CD Department on 24.11.1997 reveals that preference is to
be given to an orphan, widow, separated, divorced, or deserted
women. The procedure for selection provides that the committee
headed by the CDPO with Supervisor and ANM as members,
should select the Anganwadi Helper in consultation with the
women groups of the village. As has been stated herein before,
pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Sub-Collector
directed the CDPO vide letter dated 29.06.2011 to hold meeting
for selection of Anganwadi Helper. Accordingly, the meeting is
said to have been held on 26.08.2011, when the petitioner was
only present and the other three candidates namely, Sarojini
Pradhan, Padmabati Dei (Opposite Party No.6) and Mamata
Pradhan were absent. The members present voted in favour of
the petitioner. Accordingly, she was selected. Under such
circumstances, the selection of the petitioner cannot be faulted
with in any manner whatsoever. Though the guidelines lay
down that preference is to be given to some categories of
candidates, the same obviously does not mean that all other
candidates are to be ignored. Moreover, when a candidate
entitled to preference is absent during the meeting, it can be
presumed that she is not interested for such engagement.
7. Even assuming that she had some personal difficulty for
which she could not appear, she could have brought such fact
to the notice of the authorities. Nothing has been demonstrated
before this Court that the Opposite Party No.6 had approached
the authority to explain as to why she was not present or to
seek postponement of the proceedings because of her difficulty.
Under the circumstances, her absence can only be treated as
fatal to her candidature as otherwise it would result in gross
injustice to the candidate, who was physically present,
participated in the proceeding and was voted by the majority of
the persons present. The Collector appears to have ignored the
above aspect while apparently placing undue sympathy on the
Opposite Party No.6.
8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained
in the eye of law. In the result the writ application is allowed.
The impugned order under Annexure-4 is hereby quashed.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 15th of April, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 17-Apr-2025 15:51:50
