Orissa High Court
Kamala Majhi vs State Of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite ... on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 18968 of 2023
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Kamala Majhi ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.Behera,
Additional Government Advocate
for the State.
Mr. A.K.Mohanty,
Learned counsel appearing for
Opp. Party No.7
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
7th January, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ application with the
following relief:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the writ
application, call upon the opposite parties to
show cause and upon their failure to show cause
or showing insufficient cause, may further be
pleased to direct the opposite party No.2 to 4 to
cancel the selection/ appointment of the
Opposite Party No.7 and appoint the petitioner
as the Anganwadi worker in Gambhariguda
Anganwadi Centre;
And pass any other order (s) as this
Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts &
circumstances of the case.
And for which act of kindness the petitioner
shall as duty bound ever pray."
2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that she was an
applicant for Anganwadi Worker of Gambhariguda-1
Anganwadi Centre under Chandahandi ICDS project in the
district of Nabarangpur, pursuant to advertisement dated
16.09.2021. Amongst others, the private Opposite Party No. 7
was also an applicant. In the merit list prepared, the
Opposite Party No.7 was selected and having secured total
68.66% of marks. The petitioner secured 61.83%. Being
aggrieved by the selection of Opposite Party no. 7 the
petitioner initially approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1256
of 2022, which was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2022
granting liberty to her to pursue her remedy before the
appropriate forum. According to the petitioner preferred an
appeal being RAC (AWW) Appeal Case No. 4 of 2022 before
the ADM, Nabarangpur. The ADM, Nabarangpur after
hearing the parties and on considering the report of the
CDPO, found no merit in the appeal and accordingly rejected
the same. Being aggrieved the petitioner, has filed this writ
application.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Opposite
Parties stating therein that there are two Anganwadi Centres
in Gambhariguda village namely, Gambhariguda-1 and
Gambhariguda-2. In the survey report prepared by the
Anganwadi Worker, it was found that the petitioner belongs
to Gambhariguda 2 Anganwadi Centre whereas the Opposite
Party No.7 belongs to Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre. As
per the guidelines issued by the Government the Opposite
Party No.7 was rightly selected. Further, the ADM directed
the CDPO, Chandahandi to submit a report regarding the
residential status of both the applicants. The CDPO upon
after conducting an inquiry found that the petitioner is a
resident of Gambhariguda-2 Anganwadi Centre while the
Opposite Party No. 7 is a resident of Gambhariguda-1
Anganwadi Centre and therefore, is a resident of the service
area of the centre in question. As such, the appeal was
rightly dismissed.
4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the private
Opposite Party No.7. The stand taken by the State has
referred above has been more or less reiterated therein.
Further reliance has been placed on the report of the CDPO
relied upon by the ADM.
5. Heard Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
S.Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State and Mr. A.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite
Party No.7.
6. Mr. Pattnaik would argue that the appellate authority has
not applied his judicial mind in adjudicating the appeal but
has relied entirely upon the report of the CDPO and
therefore, the findings arrived at cannot be sustained. He
further submits that report of the CDPO is factually wrong
inasmuch as the name of the petitioner's husband has found
place in the voter list of Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi Centre
in the past. All these facts have been ignored by the Appellate
Authority.
7. Mr. Behera, learned State Counsel draws attention of the
Court the survey report enclosed to the counter as Annexure-
A/4 wherein the name of the petitioner's husband finds place
in the survey list prepared for Gambhariguda-2 at SL. No. 31.
He further refers to the inquiry report submitted by the
CDPO, pursuant to the direction of the ADM on 01.12.2022
wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is a
resident of the service area of Gambhariguda Anganwadi
Centre No. 2.
8. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Private
Opposite Party also makes similar submissions as the State
counsel and refers to certain documents, filed earlier through
a memo to indicate that the petitioner has taken all benefits
under different welfare schemes of the Government as a
resident of Gambhariguda-2 Anganwadi Centre.
9. This being a challenge to the order passed by the
Appellate Authority, this Court would like to keep in
perspective the settled position of law at the outside that the
scope of interference in a writ application is limited in such
cases. Interference is permissible only when the impugned
order is passed contrary to the materials on record or against
the weight of evidence on record, Interference is also
permissible when the conclusion of the authority is such as
no prudent person would ever arrive at. Testing the
impugned order on the touchstone of the legal proposition as
referred above, this Court finds that the basic ground of
challenge to the impugned order is that there was no
independent application of mind by the Appellate Authority
and the report of the CDPO was given undue weightage. Mr.
Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to
convince this Court that report of the CDPO is actuated by
malafides but nothing has been demonstrated to justify such
contentions. A feeble argument was made to the effect that
the CDPO apex to the distant relative of the Opposite Party
no.7 but the same was also not substantiated by adducing
proper proof. Even accepting that the CDPO is a distant
relative of the Opposite Party No.7, the same would not, ipso
facto, lead to the conclusion that the report submitted by him
on the direction of the ADM would be deliberately
wrong/incorrect.
10. This Court further finds that the ADM has not only relied
upon the report of the CDPO but also referred to the
contentions advanced by the parties and also perused the
resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar and the map
prepared by the CDPO, Chandahandi showing the houses of
the parties. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no
application of independent judicial mind by the Appellate
Authority. Be that as it may, this Court also finds that the
State has enclosed the survey report to the counter affidavit
and copy of the inquiry report of the CDPO, wherein it is
clearly mentioned that the petitioner is a resident of
Gambhariguda-2 Anganwadi Centre whereas the Opposite
Party No.7 is a resident of Gambhariguda-1 Anganwadi
Centre, the area in which the Anganwadi Centre is located.
11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no
justified or compelling to interfere with the impugned order.
Resultantly, the application is found to be devoid of merit
and is therefore, dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 7th Day of January, 2025/ Deepak
Designation: Junior Stenographer
