Orissa High Court
Pankajini Patra vs State Of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 7512 of 2016
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
---------------
Pankajini Patra ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. S.B.Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Patnaik,
AGA
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
28th January, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The present case involves interpretation of the
expression 'should have attained the age of 18 years, but
not 43 years', in clause-2 of the Revised Guidelines, dated
02.05.2007, for Anganwadi Workers. The said clause in
its entirety reads as follows:
"The applicant will be a female candidate in
the age group of 18 to 42 years. She should
have attained the age of 18 years but not 43
years on the first day of the year in which
the application has been invited."
.
2. Brief reference to the facts would be in order at the
outset.
3. An advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Nilagiri on
02.11.2011 inviting applications from the intending
candidates for their selection for engagement as
Anganwadi Workers. The petitioner having +2
qualification and being a SC category candidate and also
being a resident of the service area, applied in respect of
Dhadasahi Anganwadi Centre. Her candidature however,
was rejected by the CDPO, Nilagiri on 19.01.2011 on the
ground of being under-age. As per the advertisement, a
candidate below 18 years or above 42 years as on 01.01.
2011 was not eligible to apply. The petitioner, having
been born on 04.03.1993 was aged 17 years 10 months
and 27 days as on 01.11.2011. The petitioner initially
filed an appeal before the ADM, Balasore against such
disqualification on the ground that ,as per the guidelines,
the candidate should have 'attained' 18 years. The
petitioner having completed 17 years and 10 months is to
be treated as having attained the age of 18 years in view
of the meaning of the word 'attainment' and the position
of law laid down by this Court.
3. The stand of the State is that the revised guidelines
dated 02.05.2007 are very clear that the candidate
should have attained the age of 18 years but not 43 years
on the first day of the year in which the application has
been invited. Since number of clarifications were sought
for, the Government in Women and Child Development
Department, vide letter dated 31.01.2013, substituted
Paragraph-2 as follows:
"The applicant will be a female candidate in
the age group of 18 years to 42 years on the
first day of the year in which the application
has been invited."
Further, to the clarification, the Director Social
Welfare and ex officio Joint Secretary to Government in W
& CD Department issued clarification to the effect that the
word 'attained appearing in Paragraph-2 of the revised
guidelines may be read as completed.
Therefore, the petitioner having completed 17 years
10 months and 27 days cannot be treated as having
completed 18 years so as to be eligible to apply.
4. Heard Mr. S.B.Mohanty, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the
State.
5. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the word 'attain' means
'to approach' and 'to move by progression'. The petitioner
having admittedly completed 17 years was in her 18th
year. This, according to Mr. Mohanty, would mean that
she had attained to the 18th year and was therefore,
eligible as per the advertisement. He relies upon a
judgment passed by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court
in the case of T.K.Reddy v State of Odisha and Others1
in support of his contention.
6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State counsel on the other hand
submits that the expression 'should have attained' refers
2011 (I) ILR-CUT-749
to the past tense and therefore, the ordinary meaning
would be that a person who has already passed or
completed 18 years. Mr. Pattnaik, further submits that
the Government therefore, issued necessary clarification
specifying that the word 'attained' shall be read as
'completed'.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length
and on going through the relevant paragraph of the
revised guidelines quoted above, this Court finds that the
expression 'should have attained' as it existed prior to
issuance of the clarification by the Government on
31.01.2013 followed by 29.12.2016 was obviously, in the
past tense, i.e. to an event that has already happened.
The word 'attained' has been defined in the Black's Law
Dictionary as 'to reach or come to by progression or
motion, to arrive at, as to attain a ripe old age'. This
definition has been considered in the case of T.K.Reddy
(supra) to mean that person on completing 20 years of
age attained the age of 21 years. Said case involved
interpretation of Section 11 of the Odisha Gram
Panchayat Act, 1964. Having gone through the relevant
provisions of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act that is,
Section 11 (C )(iii) and upon reading the judgment passed
in T.K.Reddy's case, this Court is unable to persuade
itself to agree with the interpretation given therein for the
reasons spelt out below.
Firstly, the word used in Paragraph-2 of the
revised guidelines is not 'attain' but 'attained' which
refers to the past tense. Secondly, the word 'attain' is
qualified by the words 'should have', which also refers to
the past tense. Read as a whole, the expression 'should
have attained' would obviously refer to something that
has already happened. In other words, to a fait accompli.
As such, the expression 'should have attained' the age of
18 years would obviously mean completion of the 18th
year. The argument that 17 years 10 months and 27 days
would be treated as 18 years is unacceptable. If such is
the interpretation, one wonders why not 17 years 1
month or even less. It would be a case of treating a
person to be aged 18 years, the moment he completes 17
years. True, she may be treated as being in his 18th year
but then the requirement as per the revised guidelines is
not a person who is in 18th year but one, who has
completed her 18th year. Understood thus, a person aged
18 years and 1 day would also be qualified but a person
having completed 17 years 11 months and 29 days would
not be held to be qualified.
8. As already stated, the above position was adequately
clarified by the Government by substituting Paragraph-2
as quoted hereinbefore. This shows that a candidate in
the age group of 18 to 42 years would be eligible for
consideration. It means a person having completed 18
years but not completed 42 years would be so eligible.
9. Coming to the judgment passed in T.K.Reddy
(supra), this Court is conscious that said judgment was
rendered by interpreting Section 11 (iii) (C) of the Odisha
Gram Panchayat Act but then, the word 'attain' is
common to both aforementioned provision as well as the
revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 relating to
appointment of Anganwadi workers. For the reasons
already indicated, this Court respectfully disagrees with
the interpretation of the Hon'ble Single Judge in
T.K.Reddy (supra). In the considered view of this Court,
the petitioner not having completed 18 years as on the
relevant date that is, 01.11.2011, was not eligible to
apply in pursuance of the advertisement dated
02.11.2011 and therefore, her candidature must be
rightly held to have been rejected.
10. However, in view of the conflict between the
interpretation of this Court and the Hon'ble Single Judge
in T.K.Reddy (supra) as regards the meaning of the word
'attain' it would be proper for the matter to be placed
before a larger Bench for resolution.
11. The Registry is directed to place the matter before
Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for orders regarding
placing of the matter before a larger Bench.
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
