Orissa High Court
Sita Jagadala vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 20315 of 2015
Application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
Sita Jagadala .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. M.K. Mohanty, T. Pradhan
T. Pradhan, S. Dash & M.R. Pradhan,
Advocates
Vs.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. A.P. Bose, N. Hota
D.J. Sahoo & P.K. Mohanta
Advocates
Mr. S. S. Dash,
Advocate (for O.P Nos. 1 & 6)
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
29.07.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner, in the present writ petition calls in
question the correctness of order dated 04.11.2015 passed
by the ADM, Sonepur in AWW Appeal Case No. 21 of 2013
whereby her selection and engagement as Anganwadi
Worker of Mursundi-V Anganwadi Center was held illegal
and the present Opposite Party No.5 was directed to be
engaged as such.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that
pursuant to an advertisement issued by the CDPO,
Birmaharajpur for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of
Mursundi-V Anganwadi Center, seven persons including
the petitioner and Opposite Party No.5 submitted
applications. The petitioner was selected as anganwadi
worker as per order dated 04.04.2013 pursuant to which
she joined. Her selection was challenged by the present
opposite party No.5 in the aforementioned appeal filed
before the ADM, Sonepur, mainly on the ground that she
was not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi
Center. The petitioner claims that the CDPO,
Birmaharajpur in her report dated 19.10.2015 stated that
the petitioner has been residing in the service area of the
anganwadi center. However, the ADM, in the impugned
order, relying on the survey report submitted by the CDPO
as well as report submitted by the Observer found that the
petitioner is not a resident of the service area of the
Anganwadi Center and accordingly allowed the appeal. The
other two candidates, namely, Mamina Gartia and
Chandrakanti Mishra having relinquished their claims, the
Opposite Party No.5 being the next suitable candidate was
directed to be engaged after disengagement of the
petitioner. The petitioner contends that the finding of the
ADM is erroneous. The survey report does not correctly
show the residential status of the petitioner and basing on
the residence of her father-in-law, from whom she has
separated, it was wrongly held that she is a resident of
Mursundi-II Anganwadi Center area. Furthermore, the
enquiry regarding residence was conducted behind her
back. The petitioner further claims that having separated
from her father-in-law, she has been residing with her
husband in a rented house in the service area of Mursundi-
V Anganwadi Center in a rented house belonging to Kishore
Chandra Kheti. On the above facts basically, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ petition with the following
prayer:-
"The petitioner most respectfully prays that
the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to
allow the petition, grant stay of operation of order
dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate, Subarnapur in A.W.W. Appeal No. 21
of 2013 under annexure-2 pending adjucation of
the writ petition and pass such other further
order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and
proper."
3. Stand of the State as reflected in the counter
affidavit filed is that the petitioner, though separated from
her father-in-law was residing with her husband in
Mursundi-II AWC area at the time of submission of
application. The Opposite Party No.4 had objected to the
candidature of the petitioner but the then CDPO, violating
the guidelines had appointed the petitioner as Anganwadi
Worker. The service area report clearly shows that she is
residing in Mursundi-II anganwadi center area. Further,
she had attended the inquiry and admitted that she has
been residing in Mursundi-II center area and also of
receiving all services relating to ICDS from the Mursundi-II
anganwadi center.
4. The stand of the private opposite party is more
similar to the stand of the State. Additionally, it is
contended that the petitioner has obtained false declaration
from the Ward Member and Kishore Chandra Kheti just to
show her residence within Mursundi-V angandwadi center
area, which cannot be considered.
5. Heard Mr. M. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for
the private Opposite Party No.4 and Mr. S.S. Dash, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6.
6. Be it noted at the outset that both Opposite
Party Nos. 5 and 6 filed affidavits, which are on record,
relinquishing their claim to the post of Anganwadi Worker
of Mursundi-V anganwadi Center area.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner
argues that as per the guidelines any person belonging to
the same village is eligible to be appointed as anganwadi
worker. The petitioner being admittedly a resident of
Mursundi village is therefore eligible. He further argues
that the petitioner has adduced ample proof of her
residence in the house of Kishore Chandra Kheti on rent of
Rs.500/- per month after being separated from her father-
in-law, which has been admitted by the State in its
counter. She has also received benefits from the Mursundi-
V anganwadi center. The ADM committed error in not
taking into consideration the documents and relied only
upon the survey report, which was prepared before
separation of the petitioner from her father-in-law.
8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate would argue that the question of residence of the
petitioner in the service area of the center in question being
basically a matter of fact, the ADM, being the Appellate
Authority has given his finding based on material placed
before him. This Court may not interfere with such findings
of fact. Mr. Patnaik further argues that even otherwise, it is
evident from the survey report as well as the inquiry report
of the Observer that the petitioner is a resident of
Mursundi-II anganwadi center area and therefore the
impugned order does not warrant any interference.
9. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the
private Opposite Party No.4 would argue that there is no
reason to disbelieve the survey report or the inquiry of the
Observer. The petitioner has produced fake documents to
show her residence within Mursundi-V center area but the
same being contrary to the survey report and the inquiry
report cannot be taken into consideration.
10. This Court has given its anxious consideration to
the facts of the case as well as the contention raised. This
Court has also perused the impugned order. It is apposite
to mention at the outset that this Court exercising
certiorari jurisdiction would be slow to interfere with pure
findings of fact unless the same are demonstrated to be
perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of materials
on record.
11. Viewed in light of the above principle, this Court
finds that the ADM being the Appellate Authority has taken
pain to verify all documents available on record such as,
survey report of Mursundi-V anganwadi center, the inquiry
report of Laxmipriya Mishra, Observer. The ADM has
recorded his observation basing on the survey report that
neither the name of the petitioner nor her husband nor
father-in-law find place in the survey list of center area of
Mursundi-V anganwadi center. On the contrary, on
verification of survey report of the Mursundi-II center, it
was found that house No.25 belongs to Balakumar Bhoi,
father-in-law of the petitioner. The names of the petitioner
and her husband-Saroj Bhoi also find place in the survey
report. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court
to suggest as to how such finding of the ADM is wrong.
Further, in view of the objections raised to the engagement
of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by an
Observer, name Laxmipriya Mishra. She submitted a
report stating that the petitioner is not a resident of
Anganwadi center area of Mursundi-V center, rather is a
resident of Mursundi-II center area. The petitioner's name
does not find place in the list of houses situate in
Mursundi-V center area. The ADM has placed reliance on
such report. Again, it has not been shown as to how the
inquiry report is wrong.
12. As regards the contention that the petitioner has
been residing with her husband in the house of Kishore
Chandra Kheti on rent, firstly, such plea does not appear to
have been taken before the ADM and is being raised before
this Court for the first time. Secondly, in view of the fact
that contradictory documents being brought on record by
the parties with each claiming the document filed by the
other side to be fake, this Court would not enter into the
arena of disputed questions of fact.
13. From what has been stated hereinbefore, this
Court finds no reason to hold the findings of the ADM to be
wrong in any manner whatsoever so as to be persuaded to
interfere with the impugned order.
14. In the result, the writ petition is found to be
devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Location:
TheOrissa
29th High
July,Court,
2025/Cuttack
B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
Date: 30-Jul-2025 10:36:06
