Orissa High Court
Diptimayee Lenka vs State Of Odisha And Others ...... Opp. ... on 10 July, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) Nos. 26812, 26991 & 27290 of 2024
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
In W.P.(C) No.26812 of 2024
Diptimayee Lenka ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
In W.P.(C) No.26991 of 2024
Annapurna Majhi ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
Page 1 of 9
In W.P.(C) No.27290 of 2024
Juli Mohanta ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
10.07.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
All the three writ applications involve common
facts and law for which they are heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment. For brevity
the facts of the W.P.(C) No.26812 of 2024 are only
reflected in this judgment.
2. An advertisement was issued on 10.07.2024 by
the CDPO, Bhuban inviting applications from eligible
candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of
Jaypur-3 Anganwadi Center including Bedhapal-1
Anganwadi Center. The petitioner was one of the
applicants. In the selection process, the petitioner was
found to have secured the highest marks and was thus
selected. Accordingly, by order dated 13.08.2024 she was
engaged as Anganwadi Worker of the Center. However, by
order dated 01.10.2024 of the CDPO, Bhuban,
purportedly on the orders of the Sub-Collector dated
01.10.2024, the selection of Anganwadi Worker was
cancelled. The petitioner submitted a representation
addressed to the Collector along with others but no action
was taken thereon. On the contrary, a fresh advertisement
was issued on 17.10.2024, copy of which is enclosed as
Annexure-6 to the writ application. In the order dated
01.10.2024 the Sub-Collector, Kamakshyanagar,
cancelled the advertisement dated 10.07.2024 on the
ground of 'adoption of procedural defect' in selection of
Anganwadi Worker. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
approached this Court with the following prayer:-
"The petitioner therefore humbly prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the
writ petition, issue Rule Nisi in the nature of writ of
mandamus or any other writ(s) as it deems fit and
proper, calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause
as to why the order No.4301, dated 01.10.2024 passed
by the Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-7 and Order
No.884 dated 01.10.2024 issued by CDPO, Bhuban
under Annexure-4 and the subsequent advertisement
No.917 dated 17.10.2024 issued by the CDPO, Bhuban
under Annexure-6, so far as the petitioner concerned
shall not be quashed and why the petitioner shall not be
allowed to discharge her duties as Anganwadi Worker in
respect of Bedhapal-1 Anganwadi Center pursuance to
letter No.695 dated 13.08.2024 under Annexure-3 within
a stipulated period with all service benefits.
And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause the said rule be made absolute and,
Pass any other writ/writs, order/orders as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case. For this act of your kindness
the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."
3. Be it noted that, in the connected writ
applications also the petitioners were applicants and
being selected and engaged in the other Anganwadi Center
have challenged the cancellation of the advertisement
dated 10.07.2024.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State
Opposite Parties inter alia, stating as follows:-
"6. That, in reply to the averments made in
paragraph-3 of the writ petition it is submitted that the
notification for the selection of Anganwadi Workers for
the five numbers of Anganwadi Centers was published
as per guidelines No.4970, dated 15.03.023 prescribed
by Dept. of Women & Child Development, Govt. of
Odisha. The original document verification of the
candidates was conducted on 30.07.2024 in presence of
the selection committee. The petitioner has secured
highest marks as per the comparative statement duly
signed by all members of the Committee (Annexure-A/4).
The final selection of the candidates was conducted on
12.08.2024 by the selection committee. The engagement
order vide No.695, dated 13.08.2024 was issued to
candidates including the petitioner on dated
30.08.2024. But as the proceeding copy of the selection
process was not singed by Sub-Collector,
Kamakhyanagar, the Chairman of the selection
committee, the petitioner was asked to accept her joining
later. However, in pursuance the order of Sub-Collector,
Kamakhyanagar vide No.4301, dated 01.10.2024
(Annexure-NB/4) regarding cancellation of notification of
vide no.559 dated 10.07.2024 on the ground of
procedural defect in selection process, the cancellation
order on the aforesaid notification vide No.884, dated
01.10.2024 was issued by this deponent."
5. Heard Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned counsel
leading the arguments for the petitioners in all the three
writ application with Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash and Mr.
Surya Narayan Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State.
6. Mr. Lenka would argue that the impugned order
is entirely silent as regards the so-called procedural
defects adopted in the selection process. On the contrary,
as admitted by the State in its counter the original
document verification of all candidates was conducted on
30.07.2024 in presence of the selection committee
wherein, the petitioner secured the highest marks as per
comparative statement duly signed by all members of the
committee. Mr. Lenka further submits that only because
the Sub-Collector did not sign in the proceeding, the
candidates cannot be blamed. Such action is therefore,
arbitrary and unreasonable.
7. Mr. Patnaik, on the other hand would submit that
the Sub-Collector being the Chairman of the selection
committee was satisfied that a proper and transparent
process had not been followed by the selection committee
and therefore, rightly decided to cancel the advertisement.
8. From the contentions raised and on perusal of the
materials on record it is evident that document
verification of all the candidates was conducted on
30.07.2024 and as admitted by the State in its counter,
same was in presence of the selection committee. The
petitioner secured the highest marks as endorsed by the
selection committee. It is stated that the Sub-Collector
had not signed in the proceeding for which the selection
process was held to be not proper. Perusal of the
comparative statement, copy of which is enclosed as
Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit reveals that the
Sub-Collector has endorsed his signature thereon. Thus,
there is overwhelming evidence to show that the selection
was made in presence of the Chairman and all other
members of the committee. So, only because the Sub-
Collector subsequently did not sign in the proceeding, the
candidates cannot be blamed.
9. Even otherwise, the impugned order does not cite
any reason whatsoever for cancellation of the
advertisement. The State has attempted to develop its
case by citing additional reasons in the counter. Such
course of action is not permissible in view of the settled
position of law that the case of the party cannot be
developed through its averments made in the counter.
Reference in this regard may be heard to the oft-
quoted judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another V. Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi, 1978 AIR 851. Even
otherwise, it is the settled position of law that though a
candidate who has passed an examination or who appears
in the select list does not have an indefeasible right to be
appointed, yet appointment cannot be denied arbitrarily,
nor can the selection test be cancelled without proper
justification. Further, the Court can give appropriate
directions where a decision is found to be arbitrary.
Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 and East Coast
Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010) 7SCC 678.
10. Viewed in the background of the legal proposition
referred above, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable for
which, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. In the result, the writ applications are allowed.
The impugned order dated 01.10.2024 in so far it relates
to the petitioners and the advertisement dated 17.10.2024
are hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be allowed to
work as Anganwadi Workers of their respective centers
without any further delay and in any case, not later than
four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of
this order by them.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 10th of July, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai Jr. Steno
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 15-Jul-2025 18:27:58
