Orissa High Court
Puspanjali Sahoo 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. 40116 OF 2023
(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India)
---------------
Puspanjali Sahoo ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. D.N. Rath, A.K. Saa and
S. Das, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
[OP Nos.1 to 4]
M/s. M. Mishra, S. Swain and
S.K. Sahoo, Advocates [OP No.5]
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
25th April, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ
application seeking the following relief:-
"Under the above circumstance, it is
therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order by directing
the opposite party no.4 to issue engagement order
in favour of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker
in respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of
Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat within a
stipulated period.
And this Hon'ble Court may be further
pleased to quash the order dated 07.12.2023
passed by the opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-
9 to the writ petition.
And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
any further order/order or direction/ directions as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
And for this act of kindness, as in duty
bound, the petitioner shall ever pray."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that pursuant
to an advertisement issued on 17.05.2017 by the Child
Development Project Officer (CDPO), Rasulpur in the district of
Jajpur for selection of Anganwadi Workers of several centres,
the petitioner submitted application for Anganwadi Centre No.6
of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat. In the selection process,
one Aparna Samal was selected and engaged. The selection of
Aparna Samal was challenged by the petitioner in AWW Misc.
(Appeal) Case No.02 of 2019 before the Additional District
Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur on the ground that she was not a
resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. After
considering the contentions raised and the materials on record,
the appellate authority allowed the appeal by cancelling the
process of selection with direction to select Anganwadi Worker
out of the merit list or to make selection afresh, if no candidate
is available. Said order was challenged by Aparna Samal before
this Court in WP(C) No.6723 of 2020. A Coordinate Bench of
this Court, vide order dated 10.10.2023, basing on the report
submitted by the Tahasildar, observed that Aparna Samal not
being a resident of the service area, the order of the appellate
authority was not liable to be interfered with. It was, therefore,
directed that the person securing 2nd highest mark is to be
given appointment. Said order was further tested in an intra-
court appeal being WA No. 2655 of 2023 filed by Aparna Samal.
But the order came to be confirmed vide order dated
24.11.2023. While the matter stood thus and the petitioner
was expecting to be issued with an order of appointment having
secured 2nd highest mark, found that the CDPO arbitrarily
added 15 marks to the marks secured by private opposite party
no.5, thereby making it 60. Since opposite party no.5 had never
submitted any +2 certificate nor caste certificate to
substantiate her claim, such selection, according to the
petitioner, is illegal, as, as per the advertisement, no document
could be considered after the date of submission of the
application. As per the information obtained by the petitioner
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the "RTI
Act"), the opposite party no.5 had not mentioned about the +2
qualification or her caste in her application form, nor
submitted any documentary evidence in support thereof. The
opposite party no.5 was, however, engaged vide order dated
07.12.2023. On such facts, the writ application has been filed
with the prayer quoted earlier.
3. The stand of the State opposite parties is that the
original mark compilation list/register signed by the selection
committee shows that the opposite party no.5 secured 2nd
highest mark and accordingly she was selected. There is no
question of addition or deletion of marks. The documents
obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act were issued by the
then CDPO, but the caste certificate and higher qualification
certificate were taken into consideration by the selection
committee at the time of holding the original selection for the
first time.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, inter alia, stating
that since the opposite party no.5 had not submitted the
relevant certificates while submitting her application, taking
the same into consideration by the selection committee at the
time of selection for the first time, is entirely illegal as per the
settled position of law that documents not submitted at the
time of submission of application cannot be taken into
consideration.
5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the private
opposite party no.5 stating therein that she belongs to the
Scheduled Caste category and has passed +2 Arts
Examination, for which she got additional marks and as such
secured the 2nd highest marks among all the candidates.
Further, she had submitted her application enclosing all the
relevant documents by 03.06.2017, the last date for
submission of application. The select list was notified inviting
objections, vide notice dated 06.06.2017, but no one, including
the petitioner, submitted any objection at that time, for which
she is estopped from raising any objection now. It is also
stated that since opposite party no.5 had submitted her
documents, it is possible that some manipulation was made.
6. Heard Shri D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State and Shri Manoranjan Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for opposite party no.5.
7. Shri Rath would argue that the original file of the
office of the CDPO containing the applications submitted by all
candidates, as produced by the State Counsel, clearly shows
that opposite party no.5 had not submitted +2 pass and caste
certificates along with her application. As such, she could not
have been permitted to submit such certificates later, if at all.
Under such circumstances, adding 5 marks in +2 qualification
and 10 marks towards SC category by the selection committee,
is entirely illegal and unjustified.
8. Shri Pattanaik, learned State Counsel submits that
from the original file it is seen that the application submitted
by opposite party no.5 was not accompanied by the +2
certificate or her caste certificate. However, the selection
committee, considering her higher qualification and her social
category, awarded extra marks as per the guidelines.
9. Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for private
opposite party no.5 submits that firstly, the petitioner, never
having objected to the select list at the relevant time, cannot be
permitted to agitate the issue at this belated stage. Her
grievance was directed against the selection of Aparna Samal,
which was found to be illegal by the appellate authority and
confirmed by this Court. This Court specifically directed to
select the candidate securing the highest marks after
disengagement of Aparna Samal. Since opposite party no.5
secured the highest marks, she was rightly selected. The
allegations made by the petitioner are entirely baseless. It is
possible that some manipulation of records may have been
made subsequently at the instance of the petitioner to question
the selection of opposite party no.5.
10. As already stated, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the writ application filed earlier by the petitioner, after
setting aside the engagement of Aparna Samal, issued direction
for engagement of the person securing the next highest mark.
The petitioner claims to have secured 58.26 marks and the
opposite party no.5, 45 marks. It is not disputed that 5 marks
were added for +2 qualification and 10 marks for SC category
to the marks of opposite party no.5, thus, taking the total tally
to 60. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
petitioner that extra marks could not have been awarded to
opposite party no.5, since she had not submitted the
documents in support of the same along with her application.
The State Counsel, who produced the original file containing all
the applications, fairly submitted that the application
submitted by opposite party no.5 was not accompanied by any
+2 or caste certificate. In fact, being directed by this Court, the
incumbent CDPO has filed an affidavit on 04.02.2025 before
this Court wherein the following is stated in paragraph 4:-
"4. That, record reveals that at the time of
submission of application form for engagement of
Anganwadi Worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre
No.6 of Prathamakhandi Gram Panchayat, Laxmipriya
Sethi, Daughter of Pramod Sethi has neither mentioned
about submission of Caste Certificate in the application
form nor submitted any Caste Certificate. Further, the
tabulation register reveals that the Selection Committee
has awarded 10 marks to Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter
Pramod Sethi for submission of Caste Certificate. Since
this deponent was not working as CDPO, Rasulpur ICDS
Project at the time of selection of Anganwadi Worker in
respect of Anganwadi Centre No.6 of Prathamakhandi
Gram Panchayat, she has no knowledge as to under
which circumstances, 10 marks has been awarded to
Laxmipriya Sethi, Daughter Pramod Sethi in the heading
"Caste"."
This is sought to be countered by the learned counsel for
opposite party no.5 by submitting that the application form
said to have been submitted by opposite party no.5 contains
some manipulation. Since she had passed +2 Arts and belongs
to the Scheduled Caste by birth, there is no reason as to why
she would not fill up those columns in the application form.
11. From what has been narrated before, it is evident
that if the affidavit of the incumbent CDPO is to be taken into
consideration, it would seal the fate of opposite party no.5,
inasmuch as, it proves that she had not submitted at least the
caste certificate along with her application form. The
advertisement and the guidelines are clear that a document not
submitted at the time of submitting the application, cannot be
taken into consideration subsequently. Such being the case, it
is not understood as to how 10 marks could be added to the
marks of the opposite party no.5 by the selection committee.
Even assuming that it was on the basis of the certificate
produced by her at the time of selection, the same would still
be contrary to the provisions of the guidelines as well as the
advertisement. The opposite party no.5 has submitted a reply
affidavit to the aforementioned affidavit filed by the CDPO, but
simply by reiterating that some manipulation had been made in
the copy of the application enclosed to the writ application as
Annexure-8, and that nobody had objected to the list of
candidates published by the selection community, the specific
stand taken by the CDPO has not been rebutted or
controverted. In view of the categorical admission by the State
Counsel as well as the affidavit filed by the CDPO, which this
Court finds no reason to disbelieve, it is evident that the
selection committee committed illegality in awarding extra
marks to the opposite party no.5.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds
that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by
this Court. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
relief claimed by the petitioner.
13. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order under Annexure-9 is hereby quashed. The
opposite party-authorities are directed to issue order of
engagement in favour of the petitioner without any further
delay.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 25th April, 2025/ G.D.Samal,JR-cum-PS.
Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL
