[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Manorama Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. ... on 19 December, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 16124 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Manorama Mohapatra ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
[Additional Government Advocate]
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R. Achary for O.P. No.2
Mr. S. Satapathy,
[Advocate for O.P. No.9]
___________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
19 December, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the
following prayer:-
"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to admit this writ
application, issue Rule Nisi in calling upon the
Opposite Parties to file show cause as to why the
impugned order under Annexure-8 dated 01.05.2024
and order dated 04.06.2020 under Anneure-7 series
and order dated 28.10.2019 under Annexure-6 shall
not be quashed/set aside and the petitioner shall not
be made engagement of her for the post of ASHA for
village-Sankarpur under Gandarda Gram Panchayat
of Remuna Block of District-Balasore instead of
Opposite Party No.9 with immediate effect for a just
decision of the case."
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an
advertisement vide notification dated 23.09.2019 was
issued by the A.N.M. of Gandarda Sub-Center of Remuna
CHC inviting applications for engagement of ASHA for
Sankarpur village. The petitioner submitted her
application along with all required documents. The
verification of documents was held on 17.10.2019, when
the petitioner, though present could not produce her
original matriculation compartmental certificate due to
unavoidable circumstances. The provisional merit list was
published on the same day, wherein the petitioner was
found to have secured the highest marks among all
candidates. On the next day i.e., on 18.10.2019, the
petitioner submitted an application before the ANM
seeking leave to produce the original certificate as she
could not do so earlier because of the serious illness of her
mother. However, the authorities did not accede to her
request and published the final merit list on 28.10.2019,
selecting Opposite Party No.9 as ASHA on the ground that
the petitioner had not produced her original certificate
during verification.
3. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.27875 of 2019 challenging such decision, which was
disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2020 directing the
BDO, Remuna to consider her representation. No action
was taken by the BDO but by order dated 04.06.2020, the
Selection Committee considered the matter and held that
the candidature of the petitioner had been rightly rejected.
The Petitioner, therefore, again approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No.25681 of 2020. By order dated 07.03.2024,
this Court held that the Selection Committee could not
have decided the matter on the principle that no person
can be a judge of his own cause. As such, the Nodal
Officer was directed to consider the representation after
granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the
Petitioner. By order dated 01.05.2024, the Nodal Officer
rejected the representation, by holding that the Petitioner
was not eligible for selection as ASHA as she had not
produced the original 10th mark-sheet at the time of
document verification on 17.10.2019. Challenging such
rejection of her representation, the Petitioner has
approached this Court in the present writ application with
the prayer as quoted before.
It is contended by the Petitioner that since the
advertisement indicated that seven days' time was to be
given for inviting objections from the date of verification of
documents and publication of the provisional merit list,
the Selection Committee ought to have granted time to the
Petitioner to produce her original certificate instead of
acting in haste.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the B.D.O,
Remuna (O.P. No.6). It is stated that the Petitioner was not
eligible for selection as she could not produce the original
matriculation compartmental certificate at the time of
document verification. The advertisement does not provide
for extension of time for production of wanting documents,
if the same are not produced on the date of verification.
The candidature of the petitioner was, therefore, rightly
rejected.
The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter of
O.P. No.6 inter alia, stating that in the provisional merit
list prepared on 17.10.2019, the Petitioner was found to
have secured the highest marks being 19.65% whereas,
Opposite Party No.9 secured 18.55%. Therefore, the
Petitioner being more meritorious, her candidature could
not have been rejected. It is further stated that because of
the serious illness of her mother, she being mentally
disturbed was unable to trace out the original certificate
but found the same subsequently. She therefore requested
for granting her time to produce the certificate on the next
date of verification i.e., 18.10.2019. Instead of granting
her time, the Selection Committee went on to finalize the
merit list on 28.10.2019. Since ten days were to be given
to invite objections from the date of display of the
provisional merit list, the Petitioner should have been
granted time to produce the certificate.
5. The private Opposite Party No.9 (selected
candidate) has also filed a counter affidavit. The stand
taken by the Opposite Party No.6 in his counter has more
or less been taken by her. It is stated that since the
petitioner could not produce the original certificate, her
candidature was rightly rejected.
The Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the counter
affidavit reiterating that she had secured more marks than
Opposite Party No.9 and could not produce the original
certificate because of the serious illness of her mother.
6. Heard Mr. P.C. Jena, learned counsel for the
Petitioner; Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State; Mr. B.P.
Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.
R. Achary for the National Health Mission (O.P. No.2) and
Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the
Private Opposite Party No.9.
7. Mr. Jena would argue that when the activity
timeline for selection of ASHA provides for grant of ten
days' time for inviting objections from the date of display
of the provisional merit list and the Petitioner had
submitted written request to grant permission to produce
the original certificate on the next day, the authorities,
instead of considering such request went on to finalize the
selection on 28.10.2019. This, according to Mr. Jena is
contrary to the activity timeline. He further submits that
admittedly, the Petitioner is more meritorious than the
private Opposite Party but was not selected on the
technical ground of non-production of original certificate,
which is contrary to law. In support of his contention as
above, Mr. Jena has cited the judgments of the Supreme
Court in the case of Sweety Kumari Vs. State of Bihar
and Ors., 1and Charles. K. Skaria Vs. Dr. C. Mathew2.
8. Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government
Advocate would submit that as per the norms, the
Petitioner is required to submit the original documents,
2023 INSC 853
AIR 1980 SC 1230
the copies of which were submitted by her earlier along
with the application. Since she failed to do so, her
candidature was rightly not accepted, despite being more
meritorious than Opposite Party No.9, who satisfied all the
requirements.
9. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing
with Mr. R. Achary submits that the National Health
Mission has no direct role to play in the selection of ASHA
but has issued guidelines which have been strictly
followed. He further submits that the selection in the
instant case was done strictly adhering to the guidelines.
10. Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for
the private Opposite Party No.9 would submit that the fact
that the Petitioner was more meritorious is
inconsequential because, unless a candidate satisfies the
eligibility criteria, she cannot be brought within the zone
of consideration for selection.
11. The facts of the case as narrated are not
disputed. The notification dated 23.09.2019 mentions that
the minimum educational qualification of the candidates
must be class VII pass. The notification requires the
candidates to produce certain documents including the
educational testimonials. Significantly, it is stated that the
attested copies of the documents are to be submitted
along with the application form. It is further specified that
such attestation must be done by the local BDO/ABDO. It
is not disputed that the copy of matriculation certificate
produced by the petitioner along with her application was
duly attested by the ABDO, Remuna on 30.09.2019. All
other documents were also similarly attested.
12. It would now be proper to examine the
implication of the requirement to produce attested copies
of the documents. The word 'attest' is defined as follows in
the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary:
(i) To affirm or bear proof of the truth or validity of
something.
(ii) To be evidence of something.
Also, the word 'attest' is defined as follows in the Law
Lexicon:
(i) said of a fact, statement supported by evidence or
proof
(ii) said of a written form of a word or phrase;
substantiated by its occurrence at a specified date.
13. In the present context, 'attestation' would mean,
to certify that the copy of the document being attested is
the true copy of its original. By necessary implication, it
would mean that the person attesting the document was
satisfied that the document being attested by him was the
true copy/ reproduction of its original. In other words, it
can be presumed that the ABDO, who attested the
matriculation certificate of the petitioner, was satisfied that
it was the true copy of its original.
14. The fact that the advertisement requires
production of the attested copies is highly significant.
Though, the candidates may have been required to produce
the original documents at the time of verification yet, it
cannot be said that the attested documents were of no
value. Once the document has been duly attested and that
too by the authority required by the notification to do so, it
cannot be brushed aside only because its original was not
produced, unless of course, it is demonstrated that what
was attested was actually not a true copy of its original or
was a fake.
15. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not
the case of anybody that the Petitioner did not have
matriculation qualification or that the copy of the certificate
attested by the ABDO was a fabricated/forged document.
The norms of selection obviously lay down that the most
meritorious candidate should be selected, if otherwise
eligible. Admittedly, the Petitioner was more meritorious
than the private Opposite Party and therefore, her
candidature could not have been rejected by treating her as
not eligible.
16. In the case of Sweety Kumari (Supra), dealing
with an almost similar situation the Supreme Court held,
on the facts of the said case that the requirement to
produce the original certificates at the time of interview was
directory and not mandatory and as true copies had been
submitted by the candidates, non-production of the
originals could not have been a ground to cancel their
selection. In the case of Charles. K. Skaria (Supra),
similar view was taken by the Supreme Court wherein,
attested copies were produced.
17. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the
provisional merit list was displayed on 17.09.2019. The
activity timeline attached to the advertisement notification
provides that ten days are to be granted for receipt of
objections from the date of display of the provisional merit
list. The Petitioner submitted a representation specifying
the reasons for not producing the certificate earlier and
seeking leave to produce it. The representation was never
taken into consideration. The Petitioner has averred the
following in this regard in paragraph-7 of her writ
application:
"That since as per the advertisement under Annexure-
1 it has been stated that if any candidates became
failure to produce their original documents which they
have been submitted in course of making of their
application then they can produce the same within 7
days, accordingly on 18.10.2019 the petitioner made
an application before the A.N.M., Gandarda-Opposite
Party No.8 as she has been her original Matriculation
compartmental Certificate and intend to submit before
the Nodal Officer. The copy of such application dated
18.10.2019 of the petitioner is annexed herewith as
Annexure-5."
18. This has been replied by Opposite Party No.6 in
the following manner in paragraph-9 of its counter.
"That, in reply to the averments made by the
petitioner in Para-7 of the writ petition, it is humbly
submitted that the averments made by the petitioner
is not tenable because in the advertisement nothing
has been mentioned regarding wanting of documents
within seven days if any candidate fails to produce
on the day of verification. Further the Opp. Party No-6
the A.N.M, Gandarda Sub-Centre got the letter of
petitioner on dt. 18.10.2019 but the verification date
was on 17.10.2019 and resolution was also passed
on the same dale i.e., 17.10.2019 by the selection
committee after verification of original documents of
all candidates from the provisional list.
Copy of letter of the petitioner on dt. 18.10.2019 &
copy of verification of original documents dtd.
17.10.2019 are enclosed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-C/4 & D/4 respectively"
19. Thus, receipt of the representation of the
Petitioner submitted on 18.10.2019 is admitted but nothing
has been stated as to why the same was not considered.
Admittedly, the provisional merit list was finalized on
28.10.2019. Since the same was within the period when
objections were invited, there was no reason why the
Petitioner was not allowed to submit her original certificate,
having regard to the fact that, she was most meritorious
candidate
20. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view
that cancellation of the Petitioner's candidature solely on
the ground of non-production of the original certificate
cannot be countenanced in law.
21. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the
Nodal Officer has not considered these vital aspects of the
matter at all and has somewhat mechanically rejected the
representation of the petitioner on the ground of non-
production of the original certificate ignoring the fact that
she had, as required by the advertisement, produced
attested copy thereof.
22. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,
law and the contentions raised, this Court is unable to
persuade itself to concur with the reason cited for rejection
of the representation of the petitioner. The impugned order
is, thus, held unsustainable in the eye of law warranting
interference by this Court.
23. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned orders under Annexures 7 and 8 are hereby
quashed. The impugned select list dated 28.10.2019 is also
quashed. Consequently, the engagement of Opposite Party
No.9 as ASHA is set aside. The Opposite Party authorities
are directed to engage the Petitioner as ASHA forthwith.
24. It is made clear that though such engagement of
the Petitioner shall relate back to the date on which
Opposite Party No.9 was selected, yet she shall not be
entitled to any financial benefits for the said period.
However, the said period shall be notionally reckoned for
other service benefits, if any. It is further directed that as
Opposite Party No.9 cannot be blamed for the erroneous
selection, the authorities may explore the possibility of
engaging her in any available vacant post of ASHA.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Signed by: PUSPANJALIHigh Court of Orissa, Cuttack
GHADAI
Reason:The 19th of December, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Steno
Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:58:27
