Orissa High Court
Afr Pravati Bhatta 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. 6673 of 2022
(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
---------------
AFR Pravati Bhatta ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. P.C. Chhinchani & P.K. Behera,
Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
M/s. Mr. L. Mohanty & S. Das, Advocates
[For O.P. No.7]
____________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
29th July, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The order dated 03.02.2022 passed by
ADM, Puri in Anganwadi Appeal No. 2 of 2015 is under
challenge in the present writ application.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case
are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the CDPO,
Puri on 21.01.2010 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in
35 Anganwadi Centers, the petitioner submitted her
application in respect of Swainkera Anganwadi Center. After
the selection process that followed, a list of eligible
candidates was published by the CDPO, wherein the name of
the petitioner and four other candidates was mentioned. Said
list was published by the CDPO inviting objections. A select
list was published on 25.03.2014 wherein the name of the
petitioner was placed at serial No.2 while the name of one
Jyotirmayeee Das was placed at serial No.1, even though she
was absent at the time of verification of documents. Nothing
further was done in the matter till 22.01.2015, on which date
all the candidates were asked by the CDPO to resubmit the
documents filed earlier by them in the year 2010 for
reconstruction of the applications as the same were not
available in the office. Pursuant to such notification, five
candidates including the petitioner resubmitted the
documents except Jyotirmayee Das, who did not attend the
verification of documents held on 18.02.2015. While the
matter stood thus, another advertisement was issued by the
CDPO on 23.12.2015 inviting applications in respect of 12
Anganwadi Centers including Swainkera Anganwadi Center
and two mini Anganwadi Centers. The petitioner challenged
said advertisement in an appeal filed before ADM, which was
registered as Anganwadi Appeal No. 2/16. One Bijayalaxmi
Mishra (opposite party No.6) had also filed an appeal earlier,
being Anganwadi Appeal No. 2/15 challenging the
candidature of the present petitioner on the ground that she
is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center.
Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a
common order. The ADM, after considering the contentions
raised and the documents filed before him found that after
receipt of objection on the issue of residence, a joint
verification committee was constituted which reported on
25.03.2015 that the petitioner is not residing within the
service area of Swainkera Anganwadi Center, though she has
purchased a patch of land in that area. Further, another
candidate was absent on the day of certificate verification for
which her candidature was also rejected. The selection
committee also rejected the candidature of the other three
applicants as they had not produced the residence proof at
the time of the first advertisement. The candidatures of all
candidates being thus rejected, the selection committee
decided to publish a fresh notification. Taking note of the
aforesaid, the ADM found no reason to interfere with the
decision of the selection committee and the subsequent
notification issued on 23.12.2015. Both the appeals were
thus dismissed.
3. The State has filed counter affidavit inter alia
stating that the petitioner was one of the five applicants and
after verification of documents on 18.02.2015, the CDPO
invited objections from the general public, pursuant to which
the opposite party No.6 submitted a complaint against the
petitioner questioning her residential status. As such, the
selection committee enquired into the matter jointly on
25.03.2015 and came to know that the petitioner was
married before the date of application i.e. 21.01.2010. She is
the daughter of Fakirmohan Bhatta of Swainkera but
married to Ajay Kumar Hota of village Jhinkiria. After
marriage, she is permanently residing in her father-in-law's
house before 2010. Basing on such finding, the selection
committee rejected her candidature. Since other candidates
were also found to be ineligible, the selection committee
decided to go for fresh advertisement. The petitioner was
never selected and her claim that the select list was
published on 25.03.2014 is entirely misconceived. After
rejection of the appeals by the ADM, the selection committee
has selected opposite party No.7 as Anganwadi Worker on
07.03.2022 and she has been engaged as such as also
discharging her duties satisfactorily. The claim of the
petitioner is thus not tenable.
4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by private
opposite party No.7 stating that she was appointed pursuant
to selection process and in terms of the order passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 20285 of 2020. The opposite party No.7
has been discharging her duties satisfactorily.
5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the counter
filed by the State stating that despite her marriage, she has
been residing in her parental house at Kerandipur under
Swainkera Anganwadi Center with her husband. In the
information obtained by one Purna Chandra Das under the
RTI Act on 25.03.2014 it was informed that no one had been
appointed for Swainkera Anganwadi Center till 25.04.2014
and that the post would be filled up as per direction of the
Sub-Collector. Nothing was mentioned regarding the joint
enquiry. The selection of opposite party No.7 during
pendency of the appeals is entirely illegal. The petitioner was
placed at serial No. 2 in the selection list having secured
51.33 % marks. Jyotirmayee Das who had secured 55.40 %
marks in the HSC examination was absent during document
verification. As such, the petitioner ought to have been
appointed instead of going for fresh advertisement.
6. Heard Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel
for opposite party No. 7.
7. Mr. Chhinchani would argue that the joint
verification was conducted behind back of the petitioner. In
any case, it was reported that the petitioner is staying in
village Jhinkiria with her husband but she has purchased a
patch of land in Swainkera. As per the guidelines, the
petitioner had produced her residence certificate showing her
to be a resident of Kerandipur village. Such certificate could
not have been ignored. Fact remains that despite her
marriage, the petitioner has been residing in the service area
of Swainkera Anganwadi Center. The ADM has brushed aside
the select list dated 25.03.2014 without any valid reason.
Under such circumstances, according to Mr. Chhinchani,
issuance of fresh advertisement is bad in law.
8. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State Counsel would argue
that notwithstanding the resident certificate produced by the
petitioner, the joint verification committee, after visiting the
concerned village and interacting with the villagers found
that the petitioner had been residing in village Jhinkiria with
her husband after her marriage prior to publication of the
advertisement. This is essentially a finding of fact which the
ADM rightly accepted. As such, the claim of the petitioner
does not merit any consideration.
9. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for
the private opposite party No.7 would argue that his client
was selected in the selection process held pursuant to the
second advertisement. Said advertisement was issued after
rejection of the candidature of all the candidates pursuant to
the first advertisement. Such rejection was on account of
valid reasons. The ADM therefore, rightly rejected both the
appeals.
10. The facts of the case as narrated are not disputed.
The first thing that strikes the mind is the claim of the
petitioner of being selected as per the select list dated
25.03.2014. Reference to the said list, copy of which is
enclosed as Annexure-4, reveals that the same is simply a list
of candidates who had attended interview for the post of
Anganwadi Worker. The number '2' is endorsed against the
name of the petitioner, which is the rank. Jyortimayee Das
was placed in the first rank but it is stated that she was
absent at the time of document verification. The said list
cannot be treated as the select list. In any case, it was never
acted upon as the candidates were called upon to resubmit
documents for reconstruction. Objection being raised with
regard to residential status of the petitioner, the selection
committee decided to conduct an enquiry through a joint
verification committee comprising the BDO, CDPO and LSEO.
The committee submitted report on 25.03.2015 that the
petitioner is not residing within the service area of Swainkera
Anganwadi Center though she has purchased a patch of land
in that area. As such, her candidature was rejected by the
selection committee in its meeting held on 07.04.2015. The
petitioner has questioned the correctness of the report of the
joint committee but then no material has been placed before
this Court to demonstrate as to how the report is wrong. Only
because the petitioner has purchased a patch of land in the
area in question does not, ipso facto, make her a permanent
resident of that area. Secondly, the resident certificate only
shows residence of a person in a village whereas it is
necessary for a candidate to be a resident of the service area
of the center in question. The petitioner has not established
such fact by adducing any cogent evidence either before the
ADM or before this Court. Therefore, rejection of her
candidature on such count cannot be faulted with. The ADM
further found that the candidature of other four candidates
was also rejected on valid grounds. As such, the decision of
the selection committee to go for fresh advertisement also
cannot be faulted with. The ADM must therefore, be held to
have rightly declined to interfere with the decision of the
selection committee to reject the candidature of the petitioner
and other applicants as also to publish a fresh
advertisement. As argued by learned counsel State Counsel,
the finding regarding residence is one of pure fact, which this
Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction, would be slow to
interfere unless it is shown to be perverse. Such is not the
case here for which this Court is not persuaded to interfere
with the impugned order.
11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
finds no merit in the writ application, which is dismissed.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 29th July, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 30-Jul-2025 11:08:46
