Orissa High Court
Malatilata Padhi @ Mohanty vs Collector-Cum-District Magistrate on 11 March, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 19485 of 2024,
W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024
&
W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
---------------
W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024
Malatilata Padhi @ Mohanty ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
Collector-Cum-District Magistrate,
Bhadrak & Others ....... Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024
Sulochana Behera ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Collector-Cum-District Magistrate,
Bhadrak & Others ....... Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024
Swagatika Puhan ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner (s) : Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024]
. Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024]
Page 1 of 10
Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024]
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
11.03.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
All the writ applications involve common facts and
were therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
1. An advertisement was issued on 16.07.2013 by the
CDPO of Basudevpur in the district of Bhadrak for engagement
of Anganwadi Helper of Nakharaj Majhisahi Anganwadi Center.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.19485 & 17048 of 2024 were
applicants. One Sulochana Behera, being the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024, was selected and appointment letter
was issued in her favour by the CDPO on 19.05.2012. The
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19984 of 2014 challenged such
selection and engagement further on the ground that she being
a widow ought to have been engaged but the CDPO with an
ulterior motive had engaged Sulochana Behera. After hearing
the parties, this Court, by order dated 16.08.2023, directed the
Opposite Party authorities to select Anganwadi Helper by
conducting fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with due process
of law. This order was passed taking note of the apparent
incongruity in the appointment order issued in favour of
Sulochana Behera. However, instead of convening the fresh
Mahila Sabha as directed by this Court, the CDPO issued a
fresh advertisement on 01.07.2024. According to the petitioner
in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024, Sulochana Behera (O.P. No.4)
having played fraud in obtaining the appointment order dated
19.05.2012 should not be allowed to participate in the
selection. The writ application (W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024) has
been filed with the following prayer.
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case it is therefore, prayed that tis Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
(i) Admit and allow this Writ Application;
(ii) Quash the advertisement, dated 01.07.2024
under Annexure-4, and thereby direct to
conduct fresh Mahila Sabha, pursuant to the
Advertisement, dated 13.06.2013 under
Annexure-2 among the candidates applied,
except the Opposite party No.4;
(iii) Pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as
may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide
interest of justice;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
2. Sulochana Behera has filed W.P.(C) No.17048 of
2024 also challenging the fresh advertisement issued by the
CDPO on 01.07.2024. The prayer in the writ application filed by
her is as follows.
"Under the above circumstances, it is
therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court
be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction, order by quashing the order
passed by the Opposite Party No.3 vide
Annexure-3 to the writ application.
And the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus by directing the
Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the
persons as per the directions and observations
made by this Hon'ble Court vide Annexure-1
and 2 to the writ application, wherein this
Hon'ble Court directed for consideration of the
case of applicants by a fresh Mahila Sabha.
And for this act of kindness, as in duty
bound, the petitioner shall ever pray."
3. W.P. (C) No.25400 of 2024 has been filed by one
Swagatika Puhan. It is her case that as per the advertisement
issued on 01.07.2024 she was duly selected and appointed as
Anganwadi Helper vide order dated 16.07.2024, and has been
performing her duties sincerely. However, suddenly without any
show cause, the CDPO, by order dated 04.10.2024 recalled her
engagement. She has therefore, filed this writ application with
the following prayer.
"On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is
therefore prayed that in the interest of justice this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(i) Consider the facts stated in this petition, admit
the same and issue RULE-NISI calling upon the
opposite parties to show cause as to why the
order dated 04.10.2024 under Annexure-3 shall
not be quashed after declaring the same is illegal
and if the Opposite Parties i.e., O.P. No.4 fails to
do so, the rule may please be made absolute;
(ii) Pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as may be deemed fit and
proper in the interest of justice;
And for this act of your kindness, the
petitioner as in duty bound shall ever-pray."
4. From the conspectus of the facts pleaded in all the
three writ applications it is observed that this Court, in W.P.(C)
No.19984 of 2014 directed the authorities to select Anganwadi
Helper by conducting a fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with
the due process of law. This order was passed in the context of
the advertisement issued on 16.07.2013. Said writ application
had been filed challenging the notice dated 13.06.2013 for
holding Mahila Sabha. The Mahila Sabha was held on
12.07.2013 but no selection was held and the meeting was
adjourned on 23.07.2013. This Court, after going through the
facts held that the discrepancy with regard to the date of
appointment of Opposite Party No.3 (Sulochana Behera) clearly
shows that the order of appointment issued in her favour by the
CDPO was without convening the Mahila Sabha. It was on
under such facts that this Court directed to conduct a fresh
Mahila Sabha. It is obvious that this Court never directed the
authorities to issue a fresh advertisement. To such extent
therefore, issuance of the advertisement dated 01.07.2024 is
unconscionable. Consequently, the selection and engagement of
Swagatika Puhan is also rendered unconscionable. In any case,
such engagement was during operation of the interim order
passed by this Court and must therefore, be treated as a
nullity. Nevertheless, the order of engagement issued in favour
of Swagatika Puhan has since been recalled.
5. A stand has been taken by the State that originally
there was a notification published on 28.12.2009 for conducting
Mahila Sabha. In the Mahila Sabha, seven candidates had
appeared along with petitioner Malati Padhi @ Mohanty but no
one could be selected due to public interference. The selection
committee meeting was held on 11.05.2012 in the Office of
CDPO, Basudevpur as per guidelines and the committee
selected Sulochana Behera as Anganwadi Helper and issued
engagement order vide letter dated 19.05.2012. It is further
stated that the BDO, Basudevpur who remained in-charge of
CDPO, Basudevpur from 22.05.2012 inadvertently issued
notification dated 13.06.2013 for selection of Anganwadi Helper
of Nakharaj, Majhisahi along with two other Anganwadi
Centers. Said notification has not been worked out and that
Sulochana Behera has been continuing as Anganwadi Helper.
6. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024, Mr. J.K. Rath, learned
senior counsel with Mr. D.N. Rath for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.17048 of 2024, Mr. S.N.Mishra for the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.25400 of 2024 & Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State in all the three cases.
7. Ms. Mohapatra would argue that it being proved that
Sulochana Behera having obtained order of engagement
fraudulently in connivance with the CDPO should not be
allowed to participate in the selection process as directed by
this Court.
8. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel on the other
hand would submit that it has not been proved that Sulochana
Behera had played fraud at any point of time. Her selection was
entirely as per the guidelines and therefore, cannot be treated
as illegal. In any case, this Court having directed holding of a
fresh Mahila Sabha, she cannot be deprived of participation
therein.
9. Mr. S.N. Mishra would argue that Swagatika Puhan
was engaged after a duly constituted selection process and
therefore, recalling the order of engagement issued in her favour
is wrong.
10. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA would submit that
there being a clear direction of this Court for convening a fresh
Mahila Sabha, the same shall be held wherein all eligible
candidates, including the three petitioners, can participate.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length
and on careful consideration of the sequence of facts involved
and the materials on record, this Court finds that the
coordinate Bench of this Court directed convening of a fresh
Mahila Sabha. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged in writ
appeal and therefore, has attained finality. Therefore, the
authorities have no option except to convene a fresh Mahila
Sabha. This Court takes note of the submission of learned State
counsel that all the three petitioners can participate depending
on their eligibility. The contention advanced by the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024 that Sulochana Behera should be
debarred from participating cannot be countenanced in law
because it would amount to violating her right to equal
participation in the selection process guaranteed under Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the allegation that she
had obtained the earlier engagement order by playing fraud has
not been proved to satisfaction.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, all the three writ
applications are disposed of by directing the Opposite Party
authorities to convene fresh Mahila Sabha for selection of
Anganwadi Helper as early as possible, preferably within two
months from today.
13. It is made clear that all the three petitioners, if found
to be otherwise eligible, shall be permitted to participate in the
selection through Mahila Sabha.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 11th of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 13-Mar-2025 10:47:26
