Muni Khora @ vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5106 Ori

Orissa High Court

Muni Khora @ vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 19 March, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No. 20903 of 2024

    Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
    India.
                                 ---------------
    Muni Khora @
    Mahanandia                              ......            Petitioner

                          - Versus -

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


    Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
    ________________________________________________________

    For Petitioner        :      Mr. M.K. Panda, Advocate.

    For Opp. Parties      :      Mr. S.S. Routray,
                                 Addl. Standing Counsel


    _________________________________________________________
    CORAM:
         JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                JUDGMENT

19.03.2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

following prayer.

"The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule „NISI‟ calling upon the Opposite Parties

to show cause, as to why the impugned decision dated 23.07.2024 under Annexure-9 shall not be quashed and the petitioner shall not be reengaged in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Marad Anganwadi Center, Boriguma, Korapurt in the interest of justice;

And if the Opposite Parties are fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule made absolute by issuing appropriate Writ(s) considering the facts and circumstances of the case;

And/or pass such other order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court deem just & proper;

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was

engaged as Anganwadi Worker of Marad Anganwadi Center

under ICDS, Boriguma in the district of Koraput vide order

dated 01.09.2018. While working as such, she was disengaged

vide order dated 17.01.2022 on the ground that her resident

certificate had been cancelled by the Additional Tahasildar,

Boriguma. The petitioner had not been heard by the Additional

Tahasildar before passing the order for which she approached

this Court in W.P.(C) No.27276 of 2021. By order dated

22.09.2021, a coordinate Bench of this Court finding that the

petitioner had not received any notice in the appeal set aside

the order of cancellation of the resident certificate and

remanded the matter for fresh hearing of the appeal. It is stated

at the bar that the appeal has not been disposed of as yet.

While the matter stood thus, the petitioner submitted a

representation to the CDPO, Boriguma on 12.02.2024 bringing

the above facts to the notice of the CDPO with request to

reengage her as Anganwdi Worker. In the meantime,

challenging the order of disengagement, the petitioner had also

approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9995 of 2024 . This Court,

by order dated 26.04.2024 took note of all the facts and

directed the CDPO to consider the representation submitted by

the petitioner before the CDPO. The relevant portion of the

order is reproduced below:

"Challenging said order the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.276 of 2021. By order dated 22.09.2021, this Court set aside the order of the Sub- Collector and directed the petitioner to appear before him on 27.10.2021 with all connected documents and to file his show cause. It is submitted that, pursuant to such order the petitioner appeared before Sub- Collector and filed her show cause but the appeal has not been heard till date. In the meantime, basing on the earlier order passed in the appeal, the impugned order under Annexure-4 has been issued. It is submitted that in all probability, the fact of setting aside of the order passed by the Sub-Collector in the appeal was not within the knowledge of the concerned authority. Be that as it may, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 12.02.2024 before the CDPO, Boriguma highlighting all the relevant facts. Such representation is pending."

3. Pursuant to such order, the purported selection committee

constituted for selection of Anganwadi Worker under the

chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Jeypore met and rejected the

representation on the ground that the petitioner does not have

the necessary qualification for being engaged as Angnwadi

Worker. The relevant portion of the impugned order is

reproduced herein below:

"In the meanwhile, the minimum educational qualification for the post of Anganwadi Worker has been changed to 12th standard in revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers vide letter No.4970 dated 15.03.2023 of W & CD Department, Odisha.

In the meeting the committee allowed the petitioner to present her grievance if any in turn, the petitioners stated that she was selected by the selection committee and render her service as AWW, Marada from 01.09.18 to 16.01.2022 with utmost satisfaction of authorities. Due to cancellation of her residence certificate, she has been disengaged." She requested before the committee to reengage her or not to go for fresh advertisement until her completion of intermediate. The committee does not find any merit in accordance with her grievance. However, the CDPO concerned is directed to intimate her regarding the fresh advertisement and suggest the applicant to participate is she has already obtained the intermediate certificate."

4. Mr. M.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the request of the petitioner was to reengage her as

Anganwadi Worker. The authorities have completely misread

the purport of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ

application by treating the representation of the petitioner as a

fresh application for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. He

further submits that the ground on which the petitioner was

disengaged no longer subsists as the order of cancellation of the

residential certificate of the petitioner has since been set aside

and the appeal is yet to be decided finally. In the

circumstances, there is no reason to disengage the petitioner.

5. Mr. S.S. Routray, learned counsel for the State submits

that since in the meantime the guidelines have been revised and

the academic qualification required is intermediate, the

petitioner not being an intermediate, is therefore, not eligible

for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going

through the impugned order as well as the previous order

passed by this Court in the earlier writ application and the

materials on record, this Court finds that the ground on which

the petitioner was disengaged no longer subsists in view of the

setting aside of the order cancelling her residential certificate.

The appeal is still pending. Under such circumstances, there

was no occasion for the authorities to go for fresh selection as

the petitioner's disengagement can no longer be treated as valid.

In so far as the revision of the guidelines requiring a candidate

to be intermediate is concerned, the same will have no

application to the present case in view of the fact that the

petitioner was engaged way back on 01.09.2018 as per the

prevalent guidelines, which did not have such a stipulation. She

was disengaged on 17.01.2022 on the ground that has been

held to be unsustainable. The natural corollary therefore, is

that the petitioner ought to be reinstated in her former post. As

was held by this Court in the order passed in the earlier writ

application, the fact of setting aside of the order of cancellation

of the resident certificate was not within the knowledge of the

concerned authorities.

7. Nevertheless, the order having been set aside and the

appeal being sub-judice, it cannot be said that the resident

certificate of the petitioner is invalid, which was the ground for

her disengagement. These aspects do not appear to have been

considered in the proper perspective by the concerned

authorities while considering the representation of the

petitioner. In view of the above narration, it is evident that the

petitioner's claim subsists as per the prevalent guidelines as on

the date of her engagement.

8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the

considered view that the petitioner deserves to be reinstated as

Anganwadi Worker. However, the appeal against her resident

certificate not having been decided as yet, it shall be open to the

authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law

pursuant to any order that may be passed in the appeal.

9. The writ application is therefore, disposed of directing the

CDPO, Boriguma to reengage the petitioner as Anganwadi

Worker forthwith. She shall not be entitled to any financial

benefits for the period of disengagement but said period shall

count towards notional continuity of service.

................................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Designation: Junior Stenographer th The 19 of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno.

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:53:02