Orissa High Court

Nagma Parbin vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner on 4 July, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

           W.P.(C) Nos. 5333 and 5545 of 2025

Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India.
                       ---------------
W.P. (C) No. 5333 of 2025

Nagma Parbin                             ....      Petitioner

                          -versus-

Revenue Divisional Commissioner,               Opp. Parties
Cuttack and Others         ....

W.P.(C) No. 5545 of 2025

Wahida Khatun                            ....       Petitioner

                          -versus-

State of Odisha & Others                 ....     Opp. Parties



Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner    : Mr. A. Tripathy & A. Sahoo
                                    Advocates


                                 Vs.

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
                   (Additional Government Advocate)

                      M/s. A.P. Bose, D. J. Sahoo,
                      M.K. Panda, S. Swain,
                      D. Sahoo & D.K. Sethy, Advocates
                      [ in W.P.(C) No. 5333 of 2025]

                                              Page 1 of 17
       For Petitioner     : M/s. A. P. Bose, M.K. Panda,
                           D.K. Sethy, Advocates

                                     Vs.

      For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
                         (Additional Government Advocate)

                            M/s. A. Tripathy, A. Sahoo
                            Advocates
                           [ in W.P.(C) No. 5545 of 2025]

      __________________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                              JUDGMENT

04.07.2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Both the writ petitions are directed against the same

order and involve common facts for which, both were heard

together and are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

2. Be it noted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.

5333 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to by her name, Nagma

Parbin) has filed the writ petition challenging the order

dated 10.02.2025 passed by the RDC(CD), Cuttack in

Anganwadi Second Appeal No.1 of 2024 in so far as it

relates to holding her as not eligible for the post of

Anganwadi worker for Panisandha(C) Anganwadi Center

and for a direction to the concerned authorities to appoint

her as such.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5545 of 2025

(hereinafter referred to by her name, Wahida Khatun) has

filed the writ petition also challenging the aforementioned

order passed by the RDC(CD), Cuttack whereby she was

also held not eligible for the post of Anganwadi worker of

the aforesaid Anganwadi center.

4. The facts common to both the writ petitions are

as follows:-

4.1. An advertisement was issued by the CDPO,

Bhograi on 29.10.2022 inviting applications for the post of

Anganwadi Workers of different Anganwadi centers

including Panisandha(C) Anganwadi center, pursuant to

which, both the petitioners submitted their applications.

4.2. The Selection Committee in its meeting held on

05.01.2023 selected Wahida Khatun for the post, even

though she had secured the second highest mark. The

candidature of Nagma Parbin was rejected on the ground

that she does not belong to the service area of the

Anganwadi center.

4.3. Nagma Parbin challenged the selection of

Wahida Khatun in Anganwadi Appeal No.1 of 2023 before

the ADM, Balasore.

4.4. By order dated 15.02.2024, the ADM allowed the

appeal and set aside the selection of Wahida Khatun with

direction to the CDPO, Bhograi to disengage her and to

engage Nagma Parbin as Anganwadi worker of the center.

4.5. Wahida Khatun approached this Court in

W.P.(C) No. 5639 of 2024 challenging the order passed by

the ADM but the writ petition was disposed of by order

dated 05.04.2024 granting liberty to her to prefer Second

Appeal.

4.6. As such, Wahida Khatun preferred appeal (Misc.

Anganwadi Appeal No.1 of 2024) before the RDC(CD),

Cuttack.

4.7. The appeal was heard and disposed of on

10.02.2025 by the RDC holding that both Wahida Khatun

and Nagma Parbin are not eligible for the post of

Anganwadi Worker of the center in question and the Sub-

Collector, Balasore was directed to take further steps

accordingly.

4.8. According to Nagma Parbin, the impugned order

in so far as it holds her as ineligible for the post on the

ground that she does not belong to the service area in

question is bad in law being contrary to facts. On the other

hand, Wahida Khatun assails the finding of the RDC (CD),

Cuttack that she could not submit evidence of

documentary proof of her passing Odia upto Class-VII

standard in her application before the due date is

erroneous.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the State in both

the writ petitions, it is stated that pursuant to the

advertisement fourteen candidates had applied, out of

whom seven participated in the selection process. Nagma

Parbin secured the highest marks while Wahida Khatun

secured the second highest marks. After completion of

selection process, notice was published by the CDPO on

23.11.2022 inviting objections. Allegation was received

from the villagers of the Panisandha(C) area to the effect

that Nagma Parbin is not a resident of the service area as

she is a resident of Panisandha(B) service area. The CDPO,

Bhograi inquired into the matter by directing the Lady

Supervisor, Anganwadi Worker of Panisandha (B) center,

in-charge Anganwadi worker of Panisandha(C) center,

ASHA and concerned ANM to submit a report. Pursuant to

such instructions, the Lady Supervisor submitted report on

05.12.2022 stating that Nagma Parbin is a resident of

Panisandha(B) service area and also submitted

documentary proof. After receiving the reports as well as

survey registers etc., the Selection Committee rejected the

candidature/selection of Nagma Parbin and selected

Wahida Khatun as she had secured the second highest

marks. It is further stated that Nagma Parbin is married to

one Sk. Elias and left her in-laws house and applied for

residential certificate by residing in her father's house and

also obtained a letter from the concerned Sarpanch stating

that she was staying in her parent's house within

Panisandha(C) center. After receiving the letter of the

Sarpanch, In-charge Anganwadi worker of Panisandha(C)

center inquired into the matter by collecting data from

other functionaries such as, the concerned ANM, ASHA

and Anganwadi worker of Panisandha (B) center. From the

inquiry, it was revealed that after marriage Nagma Parbin

was residing in her in-laws house. She participated in the

selection process after obtaining residential certificate. But

she is not residing in her father's house. Her in-laws' house

is situated under Panisandha(B) center. She was therefore,

rightly disqualified. It is further stated that both the

candidates have studied and passed HSC from the same

school, i.e., P.P. Nodal Vidyamandir, Kalahi having 1st

language Urdu Wahida Khatun produced +2 examination

certificate indicating that her elected optional subject was

Odia, which was uploaded, while applying to the post.

6. In the writ petition filed by Nagma Parbin,

counter has also been filed by Wahida Khatun, inter alia,

stating that Nagma Parbin being an outsider to the

Panisandha (C) center, is not eligible to apply and that she

resides in her in-laws house which comes under the service

area of Panisandha (B) center. Further, she never obtained

the application form in her name but the form was

obtained by her mother, Najina Bibi. She submitted false

affidavit mentioning House No.127, which is actually her

mother's house, only to apply pursuant to the

advertisement. In course of enquiry, it was found that

Najina Bibi is a resident of Panisandha(B) center and has

never received any benefits like Ration, Anganwadi benefits

and other government aids from Panisandha(C) center. She

also applied as daughter of Nojrul Hussain Khan, even

though she was married. It is further stated that both of

them have passed the HSC examination from the same

school, where the 1st language was Urdu but medium of

instructions in other subjects like Mathematics, General

Science and Social Science was Odia being controlled by

Board of Secondary Education, Odisha from Class-I to

Class-X. As such, there is no need to produce the

document. The finding of the RDC is therefore bad in law.

It is also stated that Nagma Parbin was working in the post

of CRP (CM) in the same block.

7. A comprehensive rejoinder has been filed by

Nagma Parbin, which is identical to the comprehensive

counter affidavit filed by her in the writ petition filed by

Wahida Khatun. It is stated that she had secured the

highest marks for which she was selected but the Lady

Supervisor deliberately submitted a report on 11.11.2022

showing her as a resident of Panisandha(B) service area

only to reject her application. Further, she had submitted a

certificate of having passed Class-VII standard in Odia

medium, which Wahida Khatun had not. There is no proof

of receipt of allegation by the villagers on 16.11.2022 nor

the same is placed before this Court. To the best of the

knowledge of Nagma Parbin no such allegation was ever

received.

8. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel

with Mr. A. Tripathy for the petitioner, Nagma Parbin in

W.P.(C) No.5333 of 2025, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for

the petitioner-Wahida Khatun in W.P.(C) No. 5545 of 2025

and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate

for the State.

9. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel would

argue that the 1st Appellate Authority rightly discarded the

report of the concerned Lady Supervisor as per which

Nagma Parbin was said to be a permanent resident of her

in-laws' house since the date of her marriage as the same

was deliberately prepared to reject her application. On the

other hand, the residential certificate issued by the

competent authority clearly shows that she is a resident of

the same village, which was never challenged or cancelled.

She had submitted proof of passing Odia upto Class-VII

standard along with her application, whereas the other

candidate had not. The residential certificate was issued

mentioning the name of her father and it is not disputed

that her father's house is situated within the service area of

Panisandha(C) center. According to Mr. Tripathy therefore,

the reasoning adopted by the RDC to reject the residential

certificate is completely wrong. She had also submitted

proof of residence in the form of certificate by the

concerned Sarpanch, which was never considered. That

apart, she admittedly secured the highest marks among all

contesting candidates.

10. Mr. A.P. Bose, on the other hand, assails the

findings of the RDC that she could not submit evidence of

having furnished documentary proof of passing Odia upto

Class-VII standard along with her application. Since there

is no dispute that Wahida Khatun had passed her HSC

examination from P.P. Nodal Vidyamandir, Kalahi and had

produced certificate from the Headmaster of the said school

that she had passed Class-VII with Odia as 1st language, it

cannot be said that she had not submitted the required

documentary proof. That apart, the fact that the medium of

instruction in other subjects is Odia has never been

considered by the RDC. Since there is no dispute with

regard to the residence of Wahida Khatun being within the

service area of Panisandha(C) center and she had produced

her HSC certificate, treating her as not eligible as per the

impugned order is unsustainable.

11. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government

Advocate would argue that the candidature of Nagma

Parbin was rejected as she does not belong to the service

area of the center in question. She took the plea of residing

in her father's house, which comes under the service area

of Panisandha(C) center, though after marriage in 2021 she

was residing in her in-laws house, which comes under the

service area of Panisandha(B) center. Her candidature was

therefore rightly rejected. As regards the candidature of

Wahida Khatun, Mr. Patnaik would argue that though she,

like Nagma Parbin passed HSC from P.P. Nodal

Vidyamandir with her 1st language subject Urdu, no proof

was adduced that she had passed such examination with

Odia as a subject as required in the advertisement. Her

candidature was also therefore, rightly rejected.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length and have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions advanced vis-à-vis the materials on record.

Initially, the candidature of Nagma Parbin, despite the fact

that she had secured the highest marks, was rejected on

the ground that she was not a resident of the service area

of Panisandha(C) center. It appears that basing on some

allegations received from the villagers, the matter was

inquired into on the instructions of the CDPO. The Lady

Supervisor submitted report clearly stating that Nagma

Parbin resides in her in-laws' house, which is within the

service area of Panisandha(B) center. The ADM discarded

the report of the Lady Supervisor by holding that "It may be

presumed that, the report has been prepared deliberately to

reject the application of the appellant" (Nagma Parbin). So,

the facts ascertained from the inquiry conducted by the

Lady Supervisor and other functionaries were rejected

entirely on presumption. The order passed by the ADM

does not contain even a whisper as to what prompted him

to draw such a presumption. Nothing has been placed by

the petitioner Nagma Parbin to suggest any malafides on

the part of the Lady Supervisor to deliberately distort facts

against her. Even otherwise, it is not comprehended as to

what axe the Lady Supervisor had to grind against her so

as to be prompted to distort facts in her report. The RDC

being the Second Appellate Authority must therefore, be

held to have rightly rejected the above finding of the ADM

based entirely on presumption.

13. It is further seen that Nagma Parbin relies upon

the residential certificate issued by the concerned

Tahasildar in her favour. However, as held by the RDC and

according to this Court, rightly so, the same would not be

of much assistance to her as residential certificate is issued

indicating the residence in a particular village and not of a

particular area of the village. The question is not so much

whether Nagma Parbin was a resident of Panisandha

village but whether she was a resident of the service area of

the Anganwadi center in question in the same village or

not. The petitioner-Nagma Parbin has taken a stand that

her marriage being against the consent of her in-laws, she

has been residing in her parent's house ever since along

with her husband, who is a domesticated son-in-law.

However, no proof worth the name was adduced by her to

even remotely support such plea. Thus, this Court finds no

reason to interfere with the finding of the RDC regarding

lack of eligibility of the petitioner -Nagma Parbin for want of

proof that she is a resident of the service area of

Panisandha (C) center.

14. As regards the rejection of the claim of Wahida

Khatun, who was originally selected having secured the 2nd

highest marks, the RDC has held that she could not

adduce any evidence to show that she had submitted proof

of her passing Odia upto Class-VII standard along with her

application before the due date. In this regard, learned

counsel appearing for her has argued that having produced

the HSC certificate, no further certificate is required to be

adduced as the same inherently proves that she had

received her education in Odia medium. It would be

apposite at this stage to refer to the advertisement, which

stipulates that the candidates must have passed

matriculation with Odia as a subject (Odia Bisayabastu

sahita matric pass hoithiba abasyaka). In case, the

candidate has not passed matriculation in Odia but has

passed matriculation from an equivalent secondary board

then she is to adduce proof of having passed Class-VII

standard in Odia language examination as conducted by

the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. The petitioner-

Wahida Khatun has enclosed her HSC certificate of the

matriculation examination conducted by the Board of

Secondary Education, Orissa with the following subjects:-

1. First Language-Urdu

2. Second Language-English

3. Mathematics

4. General Science

5. Social Science

She also claims to have enclosed a certificate

issued by the Headmaster of the concerned school that

upto Class-VII, Odia was her first language. Two things are

evident:- Firstly, the HSC examination certificate does not

ipso facto prove that the petitioner-Wahida Khatun had

passed Class-VII in Odia. Secondly, she has not passed

Matriculation with Odia as a subject. Thirdly, the argument

that the medium of instruction in subjects other than

language, such as Mathematics, General Science and

Social Science was Odia is of no help to her in view of the

specific requirement as mentioned in the advertisement.