Orissa High Court
Sukantilata Das vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4940 of 2017
(Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Sukantilata Das ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Kunja Sundar Das,
Advocate.
-versus-
For Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4
: Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A
For Opp.Party No.5 : Mr. Bansidhar Satpathy,
Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
28.3.2025.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner assails the order dated
18.2.2017 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate,
Balasore (Opp. Party No.3) in Anganwadi Appeal Case
No.135/2010 whereby, her engagement as Anganwadi
Worker of Gouda Sahi Anganwadi Centre was quashed
and the concerned authorities were directed to
disengage her and to take steps for selection of
Anganwadi Worker out of the valid contesting
candidates.
2. An advertisement was issued by the Child
Development Project Officer, Khaira (Opp. Party No.4)
in the district of Balasore on 18.11.2009 soliciting
applications from the candidates for engagement as
Anganwadi Worker of Gouda Sahi Anganwadi Centre.
Four persons, including the Petitioner and the private
Opp. Party No.5, were applicants. In the selection
process, the Petitioner was found to be most eligible
and was recommended for selection, basing on which
she was engaged as Anganwadi Worker vide order
dated 21.5.2010.
3. Being aggrieved, the Opp. Party No.5 preferred
appeal being Anganwadi Appeal Case No.135/2010
before the A.D.M. (Opp. Party No.3) on the ground that
her candidature had been wrongly ignored. The A.D.M.
vide order dated 12.8.2011 held that the candidature
of Opp. Party No.5 had been wrongly ignored and
therefore, quashed the engagement of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner challenged the order of the A.D.M.
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.24433/2011. By order
dated 23.4.2015, this Court set aside the order of the
A.D.M. and remitted the matter for fresh decision with
direction to engage an Authorized Officer to conduct
inquiry regarding the residence of the Petitioner and
Opp. Party No.5. Pursuant to such order, the A.D.M.
authorized the Tahasildar, Khaira to conduct inquiry.
The Tahasildar, Khaira conducted inquiry and
submitted report on 14.8.2015 stating that Opp. Party
No.5 belongs to the service area of the Anganwadi
Centre. Considering the report as above, the A.D.M.,
vide the impugned order, held that the candidature of
Opp. Party No.5 had been wrongly ignored by the
Selection Committee, which is contrary to the
provisions of the revised guidelines of the Government.
Accordingly, the engagement of the Petitioner was set
aside and the Selection Committee was directed to
select Anganwadi Worker out of the valid contesting
candidates as per the previous advertisement.
4. According to the Petitioner, the order of the
A.D.M. is unsustainable since it is based entirely on
the report of the Tahasildar, Khaira, which was
submitted without conducting any physical inquiry
and without affording opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner.
5. The stand of the State authorities is that the
Selection Committee had ignored the candidature of
the Opp. Party No.5 wrongly by holding that she does
not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre.
However, as per the report submitted by the Tahasildar
it was revealed that her house belongs to the service
area and her name finds place at Sl. No.413 of the
Survey Register while the name of the Petitioner finds
place at Sl. No.717. Therefore, the A.D.M. rightly
directed disengagement of the Petitioner.
6. The stand of the private Opp. Party No.5 is more
or less the same as that of the State authorities.
Additionally, it is stated that she secured more marks
than the Petitioner in the matriculation examination
and therefore, is more meritorious than her. As such,
she ought to have been selected.
7. Heard Mr. K.S. Das, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr.S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State and Mr.B. Satapathy, learned
counsel appearing for the private Opp. Party No.5.
8. Mr.K.S. Das would argue that the Petitioner is
admittedly a resident of the service area of the
Anganwadi Centre and possesses the required
eligibility. She was therefore, validly selected and
engaged as Anganwadi Worker. In the meantime, the
Opp. Party No.5 has been engaged as M.B.K in
Jhinkiria Gram Panchayat for which she should no
longer claim to be engaged.
9. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate, would argue that as directed by this Court,
the A.D.M. authorized the Tahasildar, Khaira to
conduct inquiry into the residential status of the
parties. It was found that Opp. Party No.5 is in fact a
resident of the service area. It was also so revealed
from other materials. As such, her candidature could
not have been ignored by the Selection Committee at
the relevant time.
10. Mr.B.Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for
the private Opp.Party No.5, would argue that the fact
that the Opp. Party No.5 is a resident of the service
area has been clearly established in the inquiry
conducted by the Tahasildar, Khaira. Moreover, she
secured more marks in the matriculation examination
than the Petitioner and therefore, was eligible for being
selected. As regards her engagement as M.B.K,
Mr.Satpathy would argue that the same is a schematic
post whereas an Anganwadi Worker can be promoted
as Supervisor, which is a civil post.
11. The facts of the case, as narrated before, are not
disputed. The Petitioner was selected for engagement
and was engaged. The Selection Committee did not
consider the candidature of Opp. Party No.5 on the
ground that she was not a resident of the service area
of the Centre. In the appeal preferred by the Opp. Party
No.5, the A.D.M., basing on the report submitted by
the Tahasildar, Khaira on 11.8.2010 found the Opp.
Party No.5 to be a resident of the service area. The
matter having been carried by the Petitioner to this
Court was again remitted for fresh disposal with
direction to the A.D.M. to engage an Authorized Officer
to conduct inquiry. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, Khaira
was authorized to conduct the inquiry. The report of
the Tahasildar, Khaira, which is enclosed as Annexure-
A/4 to the counter affidavit filed by the State, reveals
that said inquiry was conducted in presence of the R.I.,
Sanjaypur, Revenue Supervisor, Khaira, ICDS
Supervisor, Khaira and the Anganwadi Worker. The
Tahasildar, Khaira perused the register containing the
survey list of village Gouda Sahi and found the name of
Opp. Party No.5 present therein at Sl. No.413. The
name of the Petitioner was also found at Sl. No.717.
The A.D.M. took note of the fact that both the
Petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.5 belong to
Totapada revenue village and accordingly had obtained
residential certificates from Khaira Tahasildar. The
A.D.M. also perused the survey list of Gouda Sahi
Anganwadi Centre, copy of which is enclosed as
Annexure-D/4 to the additional affidavit filed by the
Opp. Party No.4, which reveals that the Opp. Party
No.5 belongs to Gouda Sahi with her house comes
under the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. Thus,
the view expressed by the A.D.M. that the candidate of
Opp. Party No.5 was wrongly ignored, cannot be
faulted with.
12. It has been argued that the report of the
Tahasildar was submitted without conducting
physical inquiry. This is an unacceptable argument for
the reason that the findings of the Tahasildar are
based on verification of the relevant registers and in
presence of Government functionaries and the
Anganwadi Worker. No malafides can be attributed to
the Tahasildar so as to presume that the report
submitted by him was deliberately erroneous.
13. As regards opportunity of personal hearing, this
Court in the order passed in the earlier Writ Petition
never issued such direction, but directed the A.D.M.
to authorize an officer to conduct inquiry. Such inquiry
was conducted by an officer as senior as the
Tahasildar. The Petitioner has not been able to satisfy
this Court as to why the report submitted by him
should be viewed with suspicion. Moreover, it has not
been demonstrated that the Opp. Party No.5 is actually
not a resident of the service area and resides elsewhere
but was deliberately shown as such. This Court finds
nothing wrong in acceptance of the report by the
A.D.M.
14. The argument that Opp. Party No.5 being
presently employed should not challenge the selection
of the Petitioner can be considered only to be rejected.
Since the A.D.M. found from the materials on record
that her candidature was wrongly ignored, a finding
which this Court concurs with, condoning the mistake
committed by the Selection Committee even at this
distance of time would amount to perpetuating the
illegality. Her present engagement, if any, is
immaterial in the context.
15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by
the Opp. Party No.3.
16. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is held to be devoid
of merit and is therefore, dismissed.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 02-Apr-2025 10:44:19
