[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sabita Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others ....... Opp. ... on 12 December, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No.17220 of 2023

         Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of
         India.
                                 ---------------
         Sabita Nayak                              ......        Petitioner

                                  - Versus -


         State of Odisha and Others                .......   Opp. Parties

         Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
         _____________________________________________________________
              For Petitioner(s)    : Mr. L. Bhuyan, Advocate


              For Opp. Parties    : Mr. S. N Patnaik
                                    [Addl. Government Advocate]

                                     M/s. N. Lenka, H.K.Mohanta
                                     Ms. N. Lenka, P.K.Barik &
                                     Ms. S. Rana & G. Dash,
                                                       Advocates
                                                  (For O.P.No.6)
         ___________________________________________________________
         CORAM:
              JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                 JUDGMENT

12.12.2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The Petitioner in the present writ petition

calls in question the correctness of order dated 22.10.2022

passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar in

Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 02 of 2022.

2. Facts of the case are that pursuant to an

advertisement issued on 28.07.2021 by the CDPO, Keonjhar

for engagement of Anganwadi Workers of different

Anganwadi Centers, the Petitioner submitted her application

in respect of Dhanurjayapur Anganwadi Center. Six

candidates in total had submitted applications, out of whom

one remained absent during verification of documents. As

such, the selection was confined to five candidates.

According to the Petitioner, the present Opposite Party No.6,

who was a candidate, was not eligible for consideration as

she had submitted an invalid resident certificate being

issued in the year 2015. Nevertheless, her candidature was

considered and she was selected by the Selection

Committee. The Petitioner came to know about the

documents submitted by Opposite Party No.6 by obtaining

information under the RTI Act. It was revealed that the

Opposite Party No.6 had submitted another residential

certificate on 15.10.2021, though she had already been

engaged by then. The Petitioner initially approached this

Court in W.P.(C) No.41803 of 2021 but the same was

disposed of by order dated 04.02.2022 granting her liberty

to prefer appeal before the appropriate forum. Accordingly,

the Petitioner preferred the above mentioned appeal. The

Appellate Authority, however, held that the candidature of

present Opposite Party No.6 had been accepted by the

Selection Committee, after dealing with all the objections

received and no objection was received after declaration of

the result. As such, the Appellate Authority was not inclined

to interfere and the appeal was rejected.

3. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ

petition with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, the petitioner prays that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this application and call for the record and after hearing from the parties be pleased to quash the selection of opposite party No.6 in respect of Dhanurjayapur Aganwadi Center of Sadar Block of Keonjhar district by setting aside the order dated 25.10.2022 passed by the opposite party No.3.

And/or pass any other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound ever pray."

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party

Nos.3 and 5, inter alia, stating that though the resident

certificate submitted by the Opposite Party No.6 was of the

year 2015 but at the time of verification, she had submitted

an undertaking to allow her to submit fresh resident

certificate after obtaining the same from the competent

authority and after receiving the same, she submitted it

before the Selection Committee. Further, the in-charge

Anganwadi Worker, Kandaraposi-2 and lady Supervisor,

Kandaraposi submitted reports regarding residential status

of all candidates, which indicated that Opposite Party No.6

belongs to Dhanurjayapur Anganwadi center. Therefore, her

candidature was accepted for selection. It is further stated

that Opposite Party No.6 secured the highest mark being

57.50% marks, while the Petitioner secured only 51.67%.

Another candidate, namely, Mamata Majhi secured 56.17%

marks. Therefore, the Petitioner being in the third position

will not be eligible for selection even if the candidature of

Opposite Party No. 6 is rejected.

5. The Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter

filed by Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 5 stating that there is no

provision to submit the required documents later, rather, as

per the guidelines, all documents are to be submitted along

with the application. It is also stated that the Petitioner

secured 56.66% marks and is in the second position as per

information supplied to her under the RTI Act.

6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by Opposite

Party No.6 stating that the Petitioner never raised any

objection against the selection of Opposite Party No.6 at the

appropriate time and therefore, cannot be allowed to

question the same belatedly. Opposite Party No.6 had

submitted the resident certificate of year 2015 but as an

abundant caution, the Selection Committee directed her to

file the recent residential certificate. It is further stated that

the provisions of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules,

2017 are not applicable to the Petitioner as she is an Arts

graduate.

7. Heard Mr. L. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government

Advocate for the State and Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel

appearing for the Opposite Party No.6.

8. Mr. Bhuyan would argue that admittedly,

Opposite Party No.6 had submitted an invalid resident

certificate, which could not have been accepted by the

Selection Committee. Moreover, the Selection Committee

has no power to accept any document after the cut-off date

as per the settled position of law. The above exercise

admittedly having been undertaken in the present case, the

selection is rendered illegal. Mr. Bhuyan has relied upon

certain judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this

Court, which shall be referred to at the appropriate place.

9. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government

Advocate, would submit that the requirement as per the

guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the Government is that the

selected candidate must be a resident of the service area of

the Anganwadi Center in question. It is not disputed that

Opposite Party No.6 fulfills the other requirements. She had

submitted a resident certificate and also produced a fresh

certificate to prove that she was a permanent resident of the

service area. Moreover, she had secured the highest marks

and was therefore, rightly selected.

10. Mr. Lenka would argue that the question of

validity of the resident certificate was never raised by the

Petitioner at the time of submitting objections. Except for

the technical ground raised by the Petitioner, she could not

place any material either before the Appellate Authority or

before this Court to show that Opposite Party No.6 is not a

resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center. Since

admittedly Opposite Party No.6 was the most meritorious

among all candidates, her selection cannot be faulted with.

11. The facts of the case as narrated are not

disputed. As per the advertisement dated 28.07.2021, the

candidates were required to submit, among other

documents, a permanent resident certificate issued by the

Tahasildar. The same is in consonance with the guidelines

dated 02.05.2007 of the Government that the person to be

selected as Anganwaidi Worker must belong to the service

area of the center. It is not disputed that Opposite Party

No.6 submitted a resident certificate issued in the year,

2015. Said certificate was issued under the provisions of

Odisha Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984. Said Rules

do not prescribe any period of validity of the resident

certificate. The parties have however based their arguments

referring to the provisions of the Orissa Miscellaneous

Certificate Rules, 2017, which underwent an amendment

in the year 2017, whereby sub-rule 5 of Rule-6 was

amended as follows:-

"The validity of resident certificate shall be five years from the date of issued."

The above provision has been heavily relied upon by the

Petitioner to contend that the resident certificate submitted

by the Opposite party No.6 along with her application was

invalid as it was more than five years old. There is no

dispute that the resident certificate produced by the

Opposite Party No.6 was issued on 03.07.2015 by the

concerned Revenue Officers. The same was issued in Form-

III under Rule-3 of the 1984 Rules. Rule-3 provides as

under:-

"3. Categories of miscellaneous certificates -Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained a Revenue Officer shall be competent to grant miscellaneous certificates of the following categories:

(i) xx xx xx

(ii) Resident/nativity certificate (in Form-III) xx xx xx"

As already stated, there is no provision stipulating the

period of validity of such a certificate in the 1984 Rules. The

2017 Rules were enacted on 31.03.2017 in supersession of

the 1984 Rules. Rule-3(1)(i) provides for the issue of resident

certificate in Form No. I. As already stated, sub-rule (5) of

Rule-6 provides that the period of validity of such certificate

is five years. The question is, whether the 2017 Rules can be

applied to the certificate issued under the 1984 Rules. As

per Rule 1 (2) of the 2017 Rules, the same shall come into

force from the date of publication in the Odisha Gazette. It is

not disputed that Rules were published in the Odisha

gazette on 17.04.2017, which is therefore, the date on which

the 2017 Rules came into force. The 2017 Rules do not

contain any saving clause. Under such circumstances, the

provisions of General Clauses Act can be referred to. Section

5 of the Odisha General Clauses Act, 1937 reads as follows:-

"5.Effect of repeal.:- Where any Orissa Act repeals any enactment hitherto made, or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture: or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid;

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed."

12. It is therefore, abundantly clear that the

certificate issued under the old Rules would retain its

validity notwithstanding the enactment and coming into

force of the 2017 Rules. It is also otherwise well settled that

a statutory enactment (with includes Rules) shall ordinarily

be prospective in its application unless made specifically

applicable retrospectively. The judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Zile Singh v. State of Haryana,

reported in (2004) 8 SCC 1 can be referred to, wherein the

following observations are noteworthy.

"13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the

statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only-"nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis" -- a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edn., 2004 at p. 438.) It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid., p. 440)."

13. From the above discussion, it is clear that the

resident certificate submitted by Opposite Party No.6 along

with her application was a valid certificate having been

issued under the 1984 Rules.

Significantly, the advertisement merely requires

the candidates to produce a resident certificate issued by

the Tahasildar, without specifying that the same should

have been issued recently or under 2017 Rules. The

guidelines dated 02.05.2007 also do not contain any such

requirement. Therefore, the certificate produced by the

petitioner being a valid one, she was rightly treated as an

eligible candidate. The argument advanced to the contrary

is therefore, untenable and not acceptable.

14. It is borne out from the record that the Opposite

Party No.6 submitted an undertaking before the Selection

Committee to produce a fresh certificate, which was allowed

and she supposedly submitted such certificate within the

time granted by the Selection Committee.

15. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, the

following has been stated in this regard:-

"12. That, the averments taken in Para-10 of the Writ Petition are false and hereby denied. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.6 submitted her fresh residence certificate within the time given by the Selection Committee during certificate verification. Before that the lady supervisor and the In-charge Anganwadi Worker were submitted the survey reports which reveals that the Opposite Party No.6 is coming under service area and belongs to Schedule Tribe category. As the present Opposite Party No.6 secured highest mark as well as belongs to the service area her case was considered on merit."

16. From what has been narrated hereinbefore and

particularly, the fact that the Opposite Party no.6 has

otherwise been found to be a resident of the service area of

the center in question, the question of her submitting an

undertaking and of obtaining and submitting a fresh

certificate, which incidentally also shows her to be a

resident of the area in question, is entirely redundant.

Though the ADM has not considered the matter from the

above perspective, yet this Court finds that the final

conclusion arrived at by him is faultless.

17. This Court, while concurring with the findings of

the ADM, further holds that the Opposite party No.6 was