Orissa High Court
Sujata Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 24649 of 2017
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
---------------
Sujata Sahoo ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
_____________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. M. K.Khuntia, Advocate,
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik,
Additional Government Advocate for
the State.
Mr. S.Mohapatra, Advocate for Opp.
Party No. 4
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
9th May, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the
following prayer;
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the
records and after hearing both the parties pass the
following reliefs;
i) To quash the order dated 14.11.2017 under
Annexure-4 in so far as directing the CDPO,
Banki to invite fresh application for the post of
Anganwadi Worker of Jagannathpur-3
Anganwadi Centre.
ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to engage the
petitioner as Anganwadi worker of
Jagannathpur-3 Anganwadi Centre.
iii) And pass such other order/orders as may be
deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was
issued by the CDPO, Banki on 17.10.2016 for selection
and engagement of Anganwadi workers of different
Anganwadi centres including Jagannathpur-III. The
petitioner was one of the applicants. Though she claims
to have secured the highest marks, her candidature was
rejected on the ground that she does not belong to the
service area of the Anganwadi centre in question. The
petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidature by
filling appeal before the ADM, Cuttack in Anganwadi
Appeal No. 2 of 2017. After considering the rival
contentions and the materials placed on record, the
appellate authority allowed the appeal by holding that
the person selected (Opp. Party No.4) had produced a
forged residential certificate and was therefore not
eligible. Despite holding so, the appellate authority
directed cancellation of the entire selection process and
invited fresh applications. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
has approached this Court in the present writ
application.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Opposite
Parties, inter alia, stating that though the opposite party
No.4 was found to have submitted a forged residential
certificate and was therefore, held to be ineligible, fact
remains that the petitioner herself does not belong to
the service area of the centre in question. As such, the
appellate authority rightly directed cancellation of the
entire selection process.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder basically taking
the stand that as per the guidelines dated 02.05.2007, a
person from the same village can also be considered for
engagement as Anganwadi Worker.
5. Heard Mr. M.K.Khuntia, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the
State.
6. At the outset, it is stated at the bar that the Opposite
Party No.4 has not independently challenged the order
passed by the appellate authority directing her
disengagement. Mr. Khuntia refers to the advertisement
wherein, one of the eligibility conditions provided is that
the candidate must be a resident of the revenue
village/hamlet in which the Anganwadi centre is located.
The petitioner is undisputedly a resident of
Jagannathpur revenue village/hamlet in which the
Anganwadi centre is located. Therefore, she is eligible for
engagement as Anganwadi worker. Mr. Khuntia further
refers to Clause-1 of the revised guidelines dated
02.05.2007 to make the same argument. Referring to
the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Mr. Khunita
would submit that out of 4 candidates, only the
petitioner was available for consideration as the
selection of the Opposite Party No.4 was held to be
illegal while the remaining two candidates remained
absent. According to Mr. Khuntia, instead of cancelling
the entire selection process, the petitioner could have
been directed to be engaged.
7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA submits that the
appellate authority having noticed several irregularities
committed in the selection process, rightly directed
cancellation of the entire selection process. Further, the
petitioner is admittedly not a resident of the service area
of the Anganwadi Centre in question.
8. It would be apposite to first refer to clause 1 of revised
guidelines dated 02.05.2007 which is reproduced below.
"Applications for selection of Volunteers to work as
Anganwadi Workers will be invited for each
village/Anganwadi Center area from women residing
in the said village/Anganwadi Center area."
Clause-1 of the advertisement is in consonance with the
above guidelines. It is therefore, clear that ordinarily any
person residing in the same village can also be
considered but preference is to be given to persons
residing within the service area of the Anganwadi centre
in question.
9. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not disputed that
the petitioner belongs to Jagannathpur village but does
not reside within the service area of the Anganwadi
Centre in question. Out of the 4 candidates, the Opp.
Party No.4 Priyambada Dash was selected but in appeal
preferred by the petitioner, her selection was held to be
bad in law as she had submitted a forged residential
certificate. The other two candidates namely, Rebati
Sahoo and Sujata Sahoo (wife of Pratap Kumar Sahoo)
remained absent as stated in the counter affidavit. This
leaves the petitioner as the only candidate available for
selection. Perusal of the order passed by the appellate
authority reveals that mistakes were apparently found to
have been committed during scrutiny, but what those
mistakes are, have not been specified. The fact that a
wrong person was selected cannot be the fault of the
petitioner. This is therefore, a case where one candidate
was available who satisfied the eligibility condition as
per the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 as well as
the advertisement. Therefore, cancelling the entire
selection process does not appear to be justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
10. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that
the impugned order deserves interference only to such
extent. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed only to the extent of the
direction to cancel the entire selection procedure and to
invite fresh applications. This Court, having found the
petitioner otherwise eligible, directs the Opposite Party
authorities to issue order of engagement in her favour
as early as possible, preferably, within a period of one
month from the date of production of certified copy of
this order by the petitioner.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
