Orissa High Court
Smitanjali Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 2503 of 2021
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Smitanjali Nayak ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Behera,
Additional Government Advocate
Mr. G. Satapathy, Advocate for (O.P.
No.4)
__________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
25thApril, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The order passed by the Additional District
Magistrate (ADM), Bhadrak on 18.11.2020 in AW Appeal
No.2 of 2016 is impugned in the present writ application.
2. The facts of the case are that Kamaria Revenue
Village is a part of Sindol Gram Panchayat comprising of
Ward Nos.6, 7 & 8 and an Anganwadi Center used to
function in the said village wherein one Sarojini Pani was
engaged. On account of increase of population, it was
decided to have another Anganwadi Center in the village in
the year 2010. As such, the existing center was bifurcated
into two centers, with the existing center being renamed,
Kamaria-1 and the new center, as Kamaria-2 Anganwadi
Center. The area of operation of the newly created
Kamaria-2 Anganwadi Center included Ward No.7 and
part of Ward No.6 i.e., from House Nos.52 to 70 and 116
and 128. The said center also covered two localities
namely, Dhoba Sahi and Kandi Sahi. Notification for the
engagement of Anganwadi Worker of the new center being
issued followed by the selection, one Aradhana Nayak was
appointed as Anganwadi Worker, as per selection
committee's decision taken on 05.10.2010. As such, the
area not included within Kamaria-2 Center constituted the
area of Kamaria-1 Center. The Anganwadi Worker of
Kamaria-1 Center, Sarojini Pani having relinquished her
post, the same fell vacant. The CDPO, Tihidi issued an
advertisement on 27.07.2015 inviting applications from
eligible candidates to fill up the post. The advertisement
mentioned the area as part of Ward No.6, containing
House Nos.1 to 88 and Ward No.8, in full. According to the
petitioner, the incorporation of House Nos. 1 to 88 within
the area of Kamaria-1 was fundamentally wrong since
House Nos.52 to 70 were already included within Kamria-
2 center. The petitioner and some others, including the
private Opposite Party No.4, submitted applications
pursuant to the advertisement. According to the
petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4, being a resident of
House No.61 under Ward No.6, could not have submitted
the application as she is a resident of the area under
Kamaria-2 center. However, the authorities selected her
and issued order of engagement in her favour on
14.09.2015.
3. The petitioner submitted objection against such
selection before the CDPO, but the same was not
entertained. She therefore, filed an appeal before the ADM,
Bhadrak, being AW Appeal No.2 of 2016. The main claim
of the petitioner in the appeal related to inclusion of House
Nos.52 to 70 of Ward No.6 which was already included in
Kamaria-2 center. The voter list of 2015 showed that the
Opposite Party No.4 was a resident of House No.61, which
was reiterated in the voter list of the year 2016. The ADM,
by order dated 10.11.2016, observed that in the inquiry
conducted by the B.S.S.O., Tihidi, it was found that a
small cottage is standing over the ancestral plot of
Amarnath Sethy, father of private Opposite Party No.4
under Ward No.6, which was then within Kamaria-1
center area. As such, the appeal was dismissed. The
petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.22377 of
2016 challenging the order passed in the appeal. It was
contended before this Court that once Kamaria-1 and
Kamaria-2 centers were demarcated and the petitioner
being a resident of House No.42 while Opposite Party No.4
being resident of House No.61, the candidature of the
latter could not have been considered and in any case, the
advertisement was non-est in the eye of law. This Court by
order dated 28.02.2020, observed that a specific plea was
raised by the appellant-petitioner but the ADM only stated
that all persons belonged to the Anganwadi Center area
and because Opposite Party No.4 secured higher
percentage of marks, she was selected and given
engagement. The ADM had not discussed the contention
raised by the petitioner and passed the impugned order
without assigning any reason. As such, the matter was
remanded to the ADM to reconsider the same. Pursuant to
such order, the ADM heard the appeal afresh and by the
order impugned, rejected the same on the finding that as
per the notification dated 27.07.2015, House Nos.1 to 88
come within the center area. Both the petitioners as well
as the Opposite Party No.4 are residents of the said area.
The notification as such, had neither been challenged by
the petitioner nor declared wrong by this Court. The
candidature of the private Opposite Party cannot
therefore, be ignored. The petitioner has therefore, filed
this writ application seeking quashment of the order of the
ADM.
4. The stand of the State authorities, as per the
counter affidavit filed by the CDPO, is that the
advertisement dated 27.07.2015 clearly mentioned that
Kamaria-1 Anganwadi Center consists of house Nos.1 to
88 under Ward No.8 and Ward No.6 in part. The Opposite
Party No.4 belongs to Kamaria Village and her household
number is 88 as per the family survey report duly signed
by the Lady Supervisor. Both House Nos. 61 and 88 come
within the service area Kamaria-1. The claim of the
petitioner is therefore, devoid of merit.
5. The stand of the private Opposite Party No.4 is
that the petitioner having participated in the selection
process but becoming unsuccessful therein, cannot be
allowed to question her non-selection subsequently. The
advertisement was published on 27.07.2015, pursuant to
which the petitioner submitted her application without
any protest. Even otherwise, the house of the Opposite
Party No.4 is 61, which is included within the service area.
6. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned senior counsel
along with Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.
S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the
State and Mr. G. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for
the Opposite Party No.4.
7. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel would
argue that once Kamaria-2 Anganwadi Center was
established with its area of operation duly specified, the
authorities could not have included a portion of the said
area within the area of Kamaria-1 Anganwadi Center, as
per the advertisement dated 27.07.2015. Admittedly, the
Opposite Party No.4 is a resident of Household No.61
under Ward No.6, which comes under Kamaria-2
Anganwadi Center. Therefore, she could not have been
permitted to apply for Kamaria-1 center. On the contrary,
the petitioner's Household number is 42 which come
under Kamaria-1 Anganwadi center. These facts are
clearly proved from the voter list produced by the
petitioner before the ADM. The ADM, however, did not
consider the materials on record and wrongly held the
Opposite Party No.4 to be a resident of Kamaria -1 Center.
8. Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government
Advocate would submit that as per notification dated
27.07.2015 advertisement was issued for selection of
Anganwadi Workers for eleven centers including Kamaria-
1 Center. As per the notification Kamaria-1 Center
consisted of the area covering House Nos. 1 to 88 under
Ward No.8 and Ward No.6 in part. The petitioner's
household number is 42, but that of the Opposite Party
No.4 is 61. As such, both were eligible to apply for
Kamaria-1 Center. Since Opposite Party No.4 was found to
have secured more marks, she was selected. The appeal
was therefore, rightly rejected by the ADM.
9. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the private
Opposite Party would submit that the petitioner had never
challenged the notification dated 27.07.2015 but willfully
submitted her application and participated in the selection
process. Having become unsuccessful in the selection
process, she cannot be allowed to challenge the
notification or the selection process subsequently. Even
otherwise, as per the materials on record, both the
petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.4 belong to
Kamaria-1 center.
10. The notification dated 27.07.2015, copy of
which is enclosed as Annexure-2, reveals that in respect of
Kamaria-1 center the name of the locality is mentioned as
Kamaria-1, House Nos.1 to 88. The ward number is
mentioned as 6 (part) and 8. Undisputedly, the above
notification was never challenged by the petitioner, rather
she submitted her application and willfully participated in
the selection process. After having become unsuccessful,
she raised her grievance against the selection of Opposite
Party No.4. Her specific plea, as revealed from a copy of
the memorandum of appeal filed by her before the ADM, is
that the private Opposite Party is not an inhabitant of
Kamaria-1 Center because, as per the final voter list of
2015, her house number is 61 under Ward No.6, which
comes under Kamaria-2 center. So, essentially the
petitioner sought to challenge the notification dated
27.07.2015 including House No.61 within the area of
Kamaria-1.
11. It is trite law that unsuccessful candidates are
estopped from challenging the selection criteria. Further,
the principle of estoppel has also been applied to persons,
who, being fully aware of the procedure for selection
willfully went through the process of selection, but, being
unsuccessful sought to challenge the same. Reference in
this regard may be had to the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Dhananjaya Malik & Ors v. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors 2008 (4)SCC 171 and Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Surendar Singh 2019 (8) SCC
67. It has already been stated that the petitioner, if
aggrieved, ought to have challenged the notification dated
27.07.2015 promptly. Instead, she chose to apply knowing
fully well the area of operation of the Anganwadi Center,
as mentioned in the advertisement. She participated in the
selection process and having become unsuccessful she
raised her grievance, which, as per the settled position of
law referred above, is not worthy of consideration. Reading
of the impugned order shows that the ADM, being alive to
the above position of law, has observed that the
notification dated 27.07.2015 had not been challenged by
the petitioner at any point of time. The writ application is
therefore, held to be not maintainable on such score
alone.
12. Even on merits, this Court finds that the area of
operation of Kamaria-1 is stated as House Nos.1 to 88.
Admittedly, the household number of the petitioner is 42
and that of Opposite Party No.4 is 61. The above is evident
from the voter lists placed on record before the ADM as
well as this Court. It is needless to mention that both
come within the specified households, namely, 1 to 88 and
therefore, both were eligible to apply. Such being the fact,
the Opposite Party No.4, having secured more marks than
the petitioner, was rightly selected.
13. Thus, from the conspectus of analysis of facts
and law, as noted above, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, the writ
application is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore,
dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 25th April, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:06:18
