Orissa High Court
Sandhyarani Parida vs State Of Orissa And Others ....... Opp. ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17147 of 2018
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
Sandhyarani Parida ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Orissa and others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. S. Mohapatra
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Patnaik
[Addl. Government Advocate]
M/s. R. Achary, T. Barik
N. Barik, S. Hidaytullah
A. Pati & S.R. Ojha, Advocates
(for O.P. No. 4)
____________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
25.04.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The order passed by the Addl. District
Magistrate (ADM), Puri on 12.09.2018 in Anganwadi Appeal
No. 11 of 2016 is impugned in the present case.
2. On 22.06.2016, an advertisement was issued
inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for
Motari Gram Panchayat in the district of Puri. The petitioner
submitted her application. Since she had married a person of
the village on 04.05.2016, she applied for residential
certificate, which she received on 11.07.2016. She submitted
the same before the selection committee on the date of
verification itself, i.e., on 12.07.2016. The selection
committee found her most meritorious and accordingly
selected. The petitioner was thereafter engaged.
3. The private opposite party No. 4 filed the afore-
mentioned appeal questioning selection of the petitioner on
the ground that her application was incomplete and that
even though the advertisement mentioned 08.07.2016 as
date of verification, same was deferred to 12.07.2016. The
petitioner had not submitted residence certificate along with
her application but submitted it beyond the cut-off date
which was erroneously accepted and she was selected.
4. The ADM, after considering the rival contentions
and the materials on record, found that 06.07.2016,
07.07.2016, 09.07.2016 and 10.07.2016 being government
holidays, the date of scrutiny should have been fixed to
08.07.2016, which was a working day and that deferment of
the date to 12.07.2016 is contrary to the guidelines. The
ADM also found that the petitioner had not submitted her
residence certificate along with her application but submitted
the same on 12.07.2016. On such finding, the appeal was
allowed by setting aside the selection of the petitioner as
Anganwadi worker.
5. Stand of the State-opposite party is that as per the
guidelines, 15 days' time is to be granted to the candidates to
submit their applications. In the instant case, the petitioner
submitted undertaking in lieu of the residence certificate. As
such, her application was incomplete. The guidelines further
provide that if the 16th day falls on a holiday, then verification
of the applications would be done on the next working day. In
the instant case, two working dates, i.e., 08.07.2016 and
11.07.2016 were skipped by the selection committee.
Extension of the date to 12.07.2016 is thus contrary to
guidelines and therefore, rightly held so by the ADM.
6. Stand of the private opposite party (opposite party
No. 4) is more or less the same as the State authorities. It is
reiterated that the advertisement itself mentioned 08.07.2016
as the date of verification of the applications, which was a
working day and hence, the date could not have been
extended to 12.07.2016.
7. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate and Mr. R. Achary, learned counsel for the private
opposite party No.4.
8. According to Ms. Mohapatra, it is the settled
position of law that if the concerned date falls on a holiday,
the next working day is to be considered. In the instant case,
the 16th day fell on a holiday and because of absence of the
Sub-Collector on the next working day, the date was
deferred. The petitioner is admittedly a resident of the service
area of the anganwadi center and she was found to be the
most meritorious in the selection process. As such, her
selection should not be interfered with by adopting a hyper-
technical approach. Mr. Mohapatra has relied upon a
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Miniati Nayak
vs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P(C) No. 16157 of 2022)
in support of her contention.
9. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate
would argue that the advertisement clearly mentioned that
the date of scrutiny was 08.07.2016, which admittedly was a
working day. There was thus no occasion to defer the date to
12.07.2016. Further, the petitioner had admittedly not
submitted her residence certificate, which makes her
application incomplete and thereby liable for rejection. Her
subsequent submission of a residence certificate cannot be
considered and therefore her selection was rightly interfered
with by the appellate authority.
10. Mr. Achary, learned counsel appearing for the
private opposite party makes similar argument as the State
Counsel and submits that the authorities cannot go beyond
the guidelines framed by them. If the guidelines do not confer
power on the selection committee to defer the date, doing so
would amount to gross illegality.
11. From the facts narrated, it is evident that the
petitioner had not submitted her residence certificate along
with her application. The last date for submission of
applications was 07.07.2016 and 08.07.2016 was fixed for
scrutiny of the applications received. It is not disputed that
06.07.2016 and 07.07.2016 were holidays. Therefore, the last
date of receipt of applications would be automatically
extended to the next working day, i.e., 08.07.2016. The
guidelines dated 02.05.2007 provide that the date of scrutiny
would be the 16th day from the date of application. In the
instant case the date being originally 07.07.2016, would be
extended to the next working day because of extension of the
last date of receipt of applications to 08.07.2016. It is not
disputed that the next working day was 11.07.2016. The
petitioner submitted an undertaking to the effect that she
had applied for the residence certificate and would produce
the same upon its receipt.
12. Learned State Counsel has produced the extract
from the relevant file, which reveals that a note was put up
before the Sub-Collector stating that the 16th day falls on
07.07.2016, which is a holiday. Approval was sought for
fixing another suitable date, the Sub-Collector fixed
12.07.2016 as the date of scrutiny. Nothing is mentioned in
the order as to why 11.07.2016, though a working day, was
skipped. It is the settled position of law that unless permitted
by the statute, the authority has to power to defer the date
fixed in the guidelines for scrutiny of applications. This being
a basic proposition does not require any authority in support.
In fact, the ADM himself has referred to the relevant
judgment in his order.
13. Thus, two things emerge from the above analysis-
one, the petitioner's application was incomplete in the
absence of a residence certificate, which as per the
advertisement ought not to have been considered and
second, the residence certificate belatedly submitted by her
was accepted beyond the stipulated date, which is contrary to
the guidelines. Thus, viewed from whatever angle, the
selection of the petitioner cannot be sustained.
14. The judgment cited by Ms. Mohapatra can be
distinguished on facts inasmuch as it was a case where the
petitioner had applied for residence certificate but the same
had not been issued to her before the cut-off date. In any
case, she submitted the certificate on the date of scrutiny
itself, which was the 16th day. The date of scrutiny was not
deferred in that case.
15. From a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law
hereinbefore, this Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned
order so as to be persuaded to interfere therewith.
Resultantly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of merit for
which, the same is dismissed.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 25th April, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 29-Apr-2025 11:49:47
