Orissa High Court
Bharati Pradhani vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 29452 of 2022
An application under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Bharati Pradhani ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik,
[Additional Government Advocate]
Mr. Nihal Rath,
[Advocate for Opposite Party No.4]
___________________________________________
CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
8th of August, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner calls in question the correctness of
order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate (ADM), Kalahandi in Anganwadi Misc. Case
No.1 of 2021 whereby the selection of the petitioner as
Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center was
quashed and the Opposite Party No.4 was directed to be
engaged.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that, an
advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Kalampur on
05.07.2021 inviting applications for engagement of
Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center. The
petitioner and fifteen other persons submitted their
applications. In the selection process that followed, the
petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks
being 80.33% among all the candidates while Opposite
Party No.4 secured 64.66%.
As such, the petitioner was selected and
engagement order was issued in her favour on
07.08.2021. The petitioner joined as Anganwadi Worker
and started discharging her duties satisfactorily.
3. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party
No.4 preferred the above mentioned appeal challenging the
selection of the petitioner on the ground of late submission
of residence certificate by her and that she is not a
resident of the Anganwadi Center service area. Said appeal
was ultimately allowed by the ADM by the impugned
order, holding that the petitioner had submitted residence
certificate after the cut-off date, i.e. 20.07.2021 and
acceptance of such certificate by the selection committee
is in violation of the guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the
Government. As already stated, the selection of the
petitioner was quashed and the selection committee was
directed to appoint the Opposite Party No.4 as Anganwadi
Worker of the center in question.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ
application with the following prayer:-
"Under such circumstances the petitioner therefore
pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
admit the writ application issue Rule Nisi calling upon
the Opposite Parties more especially Opposite Party
No.2 and 3 to show cause as to why the illegal order
dated 27.09.2022 passed Anganwadi Misc. Appeal
Case No.1 of 2021 as per Annexure No.2 thereby
disengaging the petitioner and to engage Opposite
party No.4 in the post of Anganwadi Worker of
Bandhapada Anganwadi Center shall not be declared
as illegal, arbitrary, and thereby quashed.
And upon showing no cause or insufficient cause
the rule be made absolute by allowing the writ
application with a subsequent direction to the Opposite
Parties more especially Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to
issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner in
the post of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada
Anganwadi center with all consequential service and
financial benefit.
And for which act of kindness the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
4. Preliminary counter affidavit has been filed by
the CDPO, Kalampur. It is stated that sixteen candidates
had applied pursuant to the advertisement including the
petitioner and Opposite Party No.4. The original
documents of all the candidates were verified by the
selection committee on 22.07.2021. At that time, it was
found that the petitioner had applied by submitting
residence certificate of village Gharla issued in the year
2016. When asked about this, she informed the selection
committee that she was residing in village Gharla during
the year 2016 but from 2018 onwards, she is residing in
village Deypur. The earlier residence certificate had been
submitted in ignorance of the guidelines. Nevertheless, the
petitioner produced the recent residence certificate
showing her a resident of village Deypur before the
committee on 22.07.2021, which was refused to be
accepted. The petitioner therefore, approached the
Chairman of the committee, being the Sub-Collector,
Dharmagarh, who directed the committee members to
accept the same. The appeal was preferred by Opposite
Party No.4 challenging such acceptance of the residence
certificate of the petitioner after the cut-off date. The
appeal was allowed by holding that petitioner was not a
resident of the service area in question.
5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the
private Opposite Party No.4 wherein, it is inter alia, stated
that as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement,
the candidates were required to upload their certificates
online. The petitioner submitted such application stating
that she is a resident of Gharla. Subsequently, she
obtained another certificate showing her a resident of
Deypur but the same was submitted after the cut-off date.
In any case, the certified copy of the certificate indicates
that the same was cancelled and another certificate was
issued on 02.08.2021, which was much after the date of
certificate verification. Thus, the petitioner has relied upon
three residence certificates. The Opposite Party No.4
therefore, challenged her selection by filing appeal before
the ADM. The appeal was allowed as the Appellate
Authority found that the selection committee had acted
beyond the guidelines in accepting the residence certificate
of the petitioner beyond the cut-off date.
6. Heard Mr. M.K. Chand, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State and Mr. N. Rath,
learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.4.
7. Mr. Chand would argue that the petitioner is a
resident of village Deypur though she was residing in
village Gharla prior to 2018. The residence certificate
subsequently issued by the Tahasildar clearly proves such
fact. The residence certificate issued in her favour in the
year 2016 was validly issued showing her a resident of
Gharla as she was residing in the said place at that time.
But subsequently, she moved to Deypur and started
residing there. It is further submitted that online
applications were received for the first time in the year
2021 and the petitioner being a person from remote area
of the State was not aware of the procedure for submitting
online applications. Several other candidates like her also
requested for permission to submit offline applications. It
is under such circumstances that, she submitted the
residence certificate after the cut-off date.
Mr. Chand further submits that the ADM has not
considered the above aspect in the proper perspective at
all. Further, there was no occasion to engage the Opposite
Party No.4 in place of the petitioner since there were more
meritorious candidates than her and she figured very low
in the merit list.
8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik learned AGA, would argue that
the advertisement stipulated that all necessary documents
are to be uploaded along with the application. In her
application, the petitioner clearly mentioned her place of
residence as Gharla. She also submitted a residence
certificate to that effect of the year 2016. Though, she
submitted another certificate but the same was beyond
the cut-off date i.e., 20.07.2021. According to Mr. Patnaik,
such certificate could not have been accepted by the
selection committee as there is no power conferred upon it
to extend the cut-off date in any manner whatsoever.
9. Mr. Rath would argue that the petitioner has
relied upon three certificates, one of the year 2016
showing her as a resident of village Gharla, second, issued
on 20.07.2021 showing her a resident of Deypur which
was cancelled and the third, on 02.08.2021 also showing
her a resident of village Deypur. The petitioner herself
mentioned her place of residence as Gharla in her
application. If she was residing in village Deypur, there
was no reason why she would mention the same as
Gharla. The Appellate Authority therefore, rightly held that
the selection committee committed illegality in accepting
the residence certificate beyond the cut-off date and
selecting the petitioner.
10. From the rival contentions noted above, it is
evident that the first question that falls for consideration
is, whether the petitioner adduced valid proof of her claim
that she was a resident of village Deypur. In this regard,
reference to the copy of online application submitted by
the petitioner, enclosed as Annexure-B/4 to the counter
filed by the Opposite Party No.4, reveals that under the
heading 'Address' the petitioner has mentioned 'At-Gharla,
P.O.-Deypur'. The certificate issued in the year 2016
showing her resident of Gharla was enclosed to the
application. This, prima facie, shows that she was a
resident of Gharla and not Deypur.
11. It is worth considering as to why a person
belonging to a particular village would mention her
address differently in the application when the
advertisement clearly stipulates that the person to be
engaged as Anganwadi Worker must be a resident of the
service area of the said center.
12. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that the
petitioner produced a residence certificate issued on
20.07.2021 by the Tahasildar, Kalampur. The word
'cancelled' is endorsed on such certificate, as evident from
the copy thereof enclosed as Annexure-C/4 to the counter
filed by the Opposite Party No.4. What is surprising to
note is that another certificate was issued in her favour on
02.08.2021 against the same miscellaneous certificate
case number. It would be worthwhile to note that the ADM
having noticed the above discrepancy had called upon the
Tahasildar to submit a report. What report was submitted
in this regard has not been placed before this Court.
13. The said certificate was accepted by the selection
committee on 22.07.2021, which is after the cut-off date
i.e., on 20.07.2021. It is well settled that the cut-off date
fixed in the advertisement cannot be extended by the
selection committee under any circumstances and
therefore, acceptance of the certificate beyond the cut-off
date cannot be countenanced in law.
14. Coming to the stand taken by the petitioner that
the petitioner and several other candidates were ignorant
of the procedure for filing online applications, this Court
finds that the ADM has taken note of such contingency in
the impugned order as being intimated by the selection
committee. In fact, pursuant to order of this Court, the
State counsel obtained instructions to the effect that five
candidates, including the petitioner, had requested for
accepting their certificates after the cut-off date. This
Court is unable to accept such a stand for the reason that
there is no official order passed to such effect. In any
event, the selection committee could not have unilaterally
taken such decision without seeking approval of the
higher authorities or even the Government. As already
stated, the petitioner was in possession of three
certificates, out of which, one was of the year 2016 and
the other was cancelled. The only certificate that can be
treated as valid was issued on 02.08.2021, that is long
after the cut-off date. Thus, there is no way by which the
petitioner, despite being the most meritorious in terms of
marks secured, could have been selected for engagement.
The impugned order, to such extent, therefore, does not
warrant any interference.
15. This Court however, finds that having quashed
the selection of the petitioner the ADM has straightaway
directed the selection committee to appoint the Opposite
Party No.4 in her place without ascertaining her position
in the merit list. A bare perusal of the merit list, copy of
which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition,
prima facie, reveals that there were more meritorious
candidates than Opposite Party No.4, though they had not
challenged the selection of the petitioner. Notwithstanding
the above, this Court is of the considered view that once
the original selection is set aside, the ADM ought to have
directed the authorities to select a person from among the
remaining candidates after considering their relative merit.
The impugned order therefore, deserves to be modified
appropriately.
16. In the result, the writ application is disposed of
by confirming the order of the ADM only to the extent of
quashment of the selection and engagement of the
petitioner but the direction to the selection committee to
appoint Opposite Party No.4 in her place is modified by
directing the selection committee to revisit the process of
selection and select the most meritorious candidate among
the remaining candidates considering their relative merit.
The whole exercise should be completed within a period of
four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 8th of August, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 12-Aug-2025 10:39:22
