Orissa High Court
Smt. Anjana Das vs State Of Odisha on 20 November, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WA No.936 of 2025
In the matter of an Appeal under Article 4 of
the Orissa High Court Order, 1948
read with
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting
the High Court of Judicature at Patna
and
Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII
of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948
***
Smt. Anjana Das
Aged about 40 years
Wife of Sudam Charan Sau
At: Mulida, P.O.: Haladiapada
P.S.: Basta, District: Balasore. ... Appellant
(Opposite party No.7
in the writ petition)
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented through
Additional Chief Secretary
Health and Family Welfare Department
At: Loka Seva Bhawan
P.O.: Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. Mission Director
National Health Mission, Odisha
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha - 751 012
3. The Collector, Balasore
At/P.O./District: Balasore.
4. C.D.M. & P.H.O.-cum-District Mission
Balasore
At/P.O./District: Balasore.
5. The Asha Selection Committee
Represented through its Secretary
Basta C.H.C., At: Sadanandapur
P.O.: Basta, District: Balasore - 756 029
6. Superintendent, Basta C.H.C.
At: Sadanandapur, P.O.: Basta
District: Balasore. ... Respondents
(Opposite party Nos.
1 to 6 in the writ petition)
7. Susmita Das Mohapatra
Aged about 43 years
Daughter of Mrutyunjaya Das Mohapatra
At: Mulida, P.O.: Haladiapada
District: Balasore - 756 029. ... Respondent
(Petitioner in the
writ petition)
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Appellant : M/s. Rama Chandra Jena and
Manoranjan Padhi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Aishwarya Dash,
Nos.1 to 6 Additional Standing Counsel
For the Respondent : None
No.7
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. HARISH TANDON
AND
HONOURABLE JUSTICE
MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :20.11.2025
J UDGMENT
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.--
This intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature
at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court
Order, 1948 and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of
Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa,
1948, is directed against Judgment dated 16th May,
2025 rendered by a learned Single Judge in the writ
petition, being W.P.(C) No.34394 of 2023, filed at the
behest of one of the applicants for the post of Asha,
exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India whereby the decision of the Asha
Selection Committee in the Meeting dated 06.10.2023
has been interfered with and, thereby the selection of the
appellant (opposite party No.7 in the writ petition) has
been quashed.
Facts:
2. Before proceeding with the matter, it would be
worthwhile to notice the basic facts culled out from the
pleadings of the writ petition and the contents of the writ
appeal triggering this appeal.
2.1. In response to Notice No.43, dated 17.01.2023 issued by
the Superintendent of Basta Community Health Centre,
Basta ("Basta CHC", for short) for selection of "Asha" in
respect of Mulida and Pathuria villages, fifteen
candidates having applied for the said post, Asha
Selection Committee (for short, "Committee") prepared
the merit list.
2.2. On 04.05.2023, the Selection Committee finalised the
name of the opposite party No.7 by selecting her as
"Asha", on appraisal of evidence of qualification,
residential status and ration card and it was also noted
down that she is deserted/separated from her husband.
2.3. Nevertheless, in the Meeting of the Asha Selection
Committee held on 06.10.2023, on re-evaluation of
applications, out of fifteen applications, five applications
stood rejected for want of necessary documents or on the
reason that applications received beyond period
stipulated. The candidature of the respondent No.7
(Susmita Das Mohapatra) was rejected on the ground
that she is not daughter-in-law of village Mulida and has
not produced evidence of being divorcee. Even though
the respondent No.7 was asked to produce declaration
by the villagers with respect to her residential status, the
appellant (Anjana Das) was declared selected for the said
post of Asha.
2.4. Despite production of residential certificate, bank
passbook, voter card and aadhar card evidencing that
she is permanent resident of Mulida village and her case
for divorce before the Family Court was at final stage,
the Committee ignoring such glaring factual disclosure,
declared the appellant for engagement in the post of
Asha, which led to submission of representation(s) dated
09.10.2023 before the Collector, Balasore and the
Medical Officer, Basta CHC, Balasore.
2.5. Alleging non-adherence to the principles of natural
justice and assailing the decision of the Committee to
review the outcome of selection on 06.10.2023 that the
same is beyond scope of terms of Revised Guidelines for
selection of Asha in Rural and Urban Areas circulated
vide Letter No.OSH&FWS/562/21/5504, dated
05.04.2022 issued by the Mission Director, National
Health Mission ("Revised Asha Guidelines", for
convenience (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the
respondent No.7 knocked the doors of this Court
invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
2.6. By way of counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.4
to 6 it is stated that clarification being sought for by the
Superintendent of CHC Basta from the Chief District
Medical and Public Health Officer-cum-DMD, Balasore it
was clarified by Letter dated 21.09.2023 that the
Selection Committee would take a call on the eligibility
criteria as per Revised Asha Guidelines that for selecting
Asha a woman must be married/widow residing at that
village, which fact is to be corroborated by furnishing
documents.
2.7. In the counter affidavit the respondent Nos.4 to 6
admitted that the respondent No.7, though stood first in
in merit on scrutiny of application accompanied by
documents, as she did not submit "proof of marriage
certificate on the day of scrutiny", her candidature was
rejected. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit as
follows:
"It is submitted that the provisional list dated 04.05.2023
is not the final merit list in which petitioner was in the 1st
position. Still the Committee retained her name in 1st
position as she undertakes to submit the authenticate
marriage or divorce proof within 7 days. This was the
provisional selection list and the final list was to be
published after 10 days. This 10 days were retain for
objection period as per Guideline issued by NHM, Odisha
with Letter No. OSH&FWS/5504, dated 04.05.2022.
***
It is submitted that the opposite party No.05 had not
directed to the petitioner but the petitioner submitted an
undertaking for submission of marriage or divorce proof
within 7 days. She had not able to submit the
authenticate marriage or divorce proof. Also nowhere
mentioned her husband‟s name in any document
submitted by the petitioner. Whereas the Guidelines
instructed to emphasise the married/divorcee woman first
for Asha candidate."
2.8. Refuting such vague affirmation made by the respondent
Nos.4 to 6 in the counter affidavit and such assertion is
not borne on record, the respondent No.7 filed rejoinder
affidavit affirming emphatically that at the instruction of
the Selection Committee the certificate of declaration of
the villagers confirming the fact that she is resident of
Mulida has been produced. It is alleged that without
affording opportunity of hearing, acceding to the
complaint of the appellant, who was at second position,
the candidature of the respondent No.7 was rejected and
the appellant was declared successful.
2.9. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the
undisputed factual position. The respondent No.7 had
been residing in her paternal house in the Mulida village
as she had been separated from her husband and her
case for divorce was sub judice before the Family Court.
Hence, there cannot be any dispute that she is married.
The respondent No.7 was resident of Mulida village is
not only confirmed by the villagers, but also
corroborated by submitting Residential Certificate issued
by the Revenue Officer, Office of the Tahasildar, Basta.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by
observing thus:
"10. *** It is not disputed that the petitioner was
married. She claimed to have been separated
from her husband and that she was residing in
her father's house. The resident certificate
issued in her favour by the Ṭahasildar
mentions that she is a resident of Mulida
village. Though it has been stated that the
petitioner having married is not a resident of the
village yet nothing specific has been mentioned in
this regard. For instance, if not Mulida then of which
place the petitioner is a resident has not been
expressly stated. The petitioner‟s specific stand is
that though married she is not residing with her
husband at his place but is residing with her father
in her paternal village, which is Mulida. If this much
alone is accepted, then the petitioner, being a
resident of the village and a married woman,
certainly fulfils the eligibility criteria. Her
candidature was however, rejected because she
could not produce proof of her status as a
separated woman. The Guidelines do not
prescribe any such requirement. Be that as it
may, the fact that the petitioner‟s marriage has since
been dissolved, though subsequent to the selection,
goes along way to prove the stand taken by her from
the beginning. On the other hand, the stand of
Opposite Party authorities that having failed
to produce any document with regard to
divorce (at the relevant time), her status can be
considered as a daughter of the village who got
married and residing outside the village, is
completely absurd, fallacious and therefore,
unacceptable. The status of the petitioner as a
married person can only be changed by
pronouncement of the order of the competent Court
which, in the instant case, is the decree of divorce
granted by the Family Court. She cannot be
presumed to be residing outside the village for such
reason. The concerned authorities have failed to
appreciate the facts attending the case vis-a-vis the
Guidelines in the proper perspective. Significantly,
in the letter seeking clarification from CDM &
PHO, the superintendent of CHC, Basta clearly
stated that if the widow mark 'is deducted her
from total securing than she is also eligible for
final selection'. This implies that the petitioner
was the most eligible among all candidates.
11. From the foregoing narration, it is evident that
rejection of the petitioner‟s candidature on the
ground that she is not a daughter-in-law of the
village is entirely contrary to the Guidelines and
therefore, cannot be sustained."
2.10. Dissatisfied thereby, the appellant-second highest
positioned candidate in the select list, has filed the
instant writ appeal.
Hearing:
3. The writ appeal came up for consideration under the
heading "Fresh Admission".
3.1. After hearing whether the view expressed by the learned
Single Judge on appreciation of evidence on record and
considering rival contentions and submissions can be
substituted by the Division Bench in this intra-Court
appeal, before issuing notice to the respondent No.7, on
the consent of the counsel for the respective parties, this
matter is heard.
3.2. Accordingly, heard Sri Rama Chandra Jena, Advocate
and Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the appellant.
3.3. After hearing, this matter stood reserved for delivery of
judgment at a later date.
Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the
interference of the learned Single Judge in the decision
of the Committee is unwarranted and uncalled for
inasmuch as the respondent No.7 was married and, not
daughter-in-law of Mulida village. Therefore, in absence
of document indicating marriage authenticity nor was
there any document available to depict that she was
widow, the appellant, being the eligible candidate for
selection for the post of Asha, the declaration of the
Selection Committee could not be overturned.
5. The learned Additional Standing Counsel stood by the
stance taken in the counter affidavit filed in the writ
petition supporting the reasoning ascribed for rejection
of candidature of the respondent No.7 by the Selection
Committee in its Meeting dated 06.10.2023 and a plea is
taken that the outcome of scrutiny of applications on
04.05.2023 was only provisional.
Discussions and analysis:
6. The Revised Asha Guidelines prescribes the following
eligibility criteria:
"The following eligibility criteria are to be followed for the
selection of a new Asha:
a) She must be a woman (married/widow).
b) In case of rural area, she must be a resident of
the village and in case of slum/urban arca, she
must be a resident/ordinarily residing in the
slum/adjacent slum/ward (for non-slum urban
areas) from which she is proposing to be selected as
Asha. Voter ID Card/Ration Card/BPL card/
Electricity bill etc. will be used as a proof for the
place of residence.
c) Age limit:
I. The candidate should be in the age group of 25
to 45 years.
II. However, in case of non-availability of
candidates of 25 years, the lower age limit
may be relaxed to 21 years.
d) Educational qualification:
I. The educational qualification for selection of
Asha is class-X.
II. In case of non-availability of class-X
candidates in the concerned
village/slum/urban area, it may be relaxed to
class-VII pass.
e) In case of non-availability of candidate on both the
criteria (age and educational qualification), in the
second notification, relaxation of age will be
considered to select a candidate having educational
qualification of class-X or above.
f) After relaxation of age, if no class-X pass candidate
is available in the villages/slum /ward then the
educational qualification will be relaxed to class-VII
pass.
g) Further, in case of non-availability of class-VII pass
candidate, notification will be made again to invite
application from candidates having minimum
literacy standard (ability to read and write in Odia).
In such case, a formal skill test for 50 marks (@ 25
marks for reading and writing in Odia language and
25 marks for oral/interview test) is to be conducted
among the candidates applied for the position of
ASIA. The skill test of the candidates is to be
conducted by the concerned BPM in rural areas and
by CPM/APM / Asst. Manger, CP / PHM in urban
areas in the community in presence of members like
members of GKS/MAS/WSHG/CBO and general
public. The marks secured in the skill test out of 50
marks will be taken as the base for preparing the
provisional merit list.
h) Again, if no literate candidate is available in the
village even after relaxation of age (from 25 to 21)
and educational qualification (from class-X to
minimum literacy standard), the committee may
select any woman (within the preferable age group)
from that village/slum who is interested to work as
Asha. However, all the documents related to
selection process in such cases are to be preserved
for future reference.
i) Sufficient documentary evidence is to be made
available and preserved at Block / city /town level
(institution where the selection process is conducted)
for all future references."
6.1. The copy of Notice for selection of Asha enclosed to
counter affidavit of the respondent Nos.1 to 7 shows that
the following are the requirements to claim eligibility for
the post of Asha:
i. Candidate must be a woman (married/widow/
divorcee);
ii. She must be resident of the village;
iii. Age must be between 25 to 45 years;
iv. Must have passed Class-X;
Said Notice further specifies that copies of the following
self-attested documents are to be enclosed along with
application:
i. Residential Certificate issued by Tahasildar/Ration
Card/BPL Card/Voter's Card
ii. Educational qualification: Class-X Pass Certificate
with Mark Sheet (higher educational qualilfication:
copies of +2 Pass Certificate and Mark Sheet, +3
Pass Certificate and Mark Sheet, Post-Graduate
Pass Certificate and Mark Sheet are to be enclosed)
iii. Caste Certificate: issued by the Tahasildar
iv. Document showing Widow/Divorcee
6.2. The Selection Committee in its Meeting dated
06.10.2023 has proceeded to reject the candidature of
the respondent No.7 on the following grounds:
i. The respondent No.7 was not the daughter-in-law
of the village Mulida; and
ii. No document relating to divorce was produced by
the respondent No.7.
6.3. So far as the first reason of rejection is concerned, the
Revenue Officer of Office of the Tahasildar, Basta, issued
residential certificate with the following recital:
"This is to certify that Miss SUSMITA DAS MOHAPATBA
daughter of Smt. JYOTSHNARANI DAS MOHAPATRA and
Shri MRUTYUNJAY DAS MOHAPATRA, is a native/
permanent resident of the district of BALESHWAR In the
State of Odisha and she/her family is presently residing
at Village/Town Mulida, P.S.: BASTA Tahasil Basta in the
district of BALESHWAR in the State of Odisha for 43
years(s) & 0 month(s)."
6.4. It is also not controverted that the respondent No.7 was
married and she furnished document showing case for
divorce pending before the learned Family Court. This
fact can very well be discernible from the Select List
dated 04.05.2023 vide Annexure-3 of the writ petition.
Bare perusal of said document shows that the Selection
Committee has recorded that she is deserted/separated
woman and resident of Mulida village. In the remarks
column it is stated that "selected as Asha". The first
reason for rejection of her candidature that "the
respondent No.7 was not the daughter-in-law of the
village Mulida" is not a required criterion for eligibility.
Rather the "Resident Certificate" issued from the Office
of Tahasildar clearly discloses that the respondent No.7
is the resident of Mulida village.
6.5. As regards second reason to dispute her selection on
04.05.2023, there is no specific denial in the counter
affidavit as against averment that the respondent No.7
had furnished document showing case being filed before
the Family Court for decree of divorce. The learned
Single Judge has also as a matter of fact observed that
the decree of divorce has since been granted. It is very
interesting to notice from the counter affidavit that "the
Select Committee had not found the petitioner's
marriage proof also nowhere mentioned her husband's
name in any document submitted by the petitioner".
Such a stance appears to be absurd inasmuch as it is
the firm stand of the respondent No.7 right from the
beginning that she was living separately from her
husband and residing in her parental house having
furnished document showing her case for decree of
divorce was pending before the learned Family Court.
6.6. It may be pertinent to quote from the decision of the
Madras High Court rendered in G. Mayakannan Vrs.
District Collector, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 7460, wherein it
has been observed that:
"9. In today‟s world, men and women go to several
places for the sake of education or occupation, but
still consider their native place as their permanent
residence. There is a notion that a married woman
completely abandons her native place and assumes
her husband's place as her only place of residence.
If a married woman chooses to live between her
natal home and marital home on account of her
employment, business or otherwise nothing can
prevent her to exercise her option. To retain or waive
the native address is at the will of a married woman
or her family members in certain circumstances. The
will of a woman coupled with the existence of a
physical body like a house at her parent's
place, in which she opts to live either by
exercising her right or by obtaining consent/
permission, is itself sufficient to provide her
with a residential certificate relating to that
place.
***
11. The third Respondent has produced the exchange of
legal notices between herself and her husband and
submitted that there is an ongoing marital discord
between themselves. The above facts are completely
personal to the petitioner and she should not have
driven to such compulsion of revealing these private
facts about herself for the sake of this petition. A
woman would turn out to her parental abode
for any good or bad reasons and sometimes she
would even prefer to stay there for any period
of her choice with an understanding with her
parental home inmates. A choice and will of a
woman to exercise residential choice at her
natal home should not be viewed through
patriarchal prism in order to deny her the
residential status there."
6.7. This Court finds no contrary material on record to
indicate that the learned Single Judge has returned
finding lacking weight of evidence on record.
6.8. Under such premise and in presence of loud and clear
evidence on record, there is no plausible ground
available for this Court to show indulgence in the
decision of learned Single Judge.
Scope of interference in the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge in intra-Court appeal:
7. This Court, in the aforesaid emerging factual matrix,
need not go into the details of evidence to upset the
settled position with respect to residential status of the
respondent No.7 as certified by the Office of Tahasildar,
Basta as that is not required while sitting in this
jurisdiction under the Letters Patent Appeal under
Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with
Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High
Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III
and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court
of Orissa, 1948.
7.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.
Ramachandra Reddy Vrs. State of Telengana, (2019) 11
SCR 792 delineated the scope of intra-Court appeals by
making following observation:
"43. Further, in the case of Management of Narendra &
Company Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Workmen of Narendra &
Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340, while considering the
scope of the intra-Court appeal, this Court has held
that, unless Appellate Bench concludes that findings
of the learned Single Judge are perverse, it shall not
disturb the same."
7.2. In Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vrs.
Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340, it
has been observed as follows:
"Be that as it may, in an intra-Court appeal, on a finding
of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion
that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall
not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a
better view is possible, there should be no interference
with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single
Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on
relief."
7.3. This Court is not oblivious of the proposition laid by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri
Debarchan Mahanandia Vrs. State of Odisha, W.A.
No.306 of 2014 vide Judgment dated 25.09.2015, which
is to the following effect:
"5. Now coming to the contentions for the appellant with
regard to non-consideration of the case of the
appellant as recorded in point Nos.2 and 3, on
scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
it is observed that the appellant failed in raising any
such point during hearing of his case. For the lapse
of the appellant in canvassing the points to be
considered by the learned Single Judge, the decision
of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.
Further, law is fairly well settled in Dr. S.L. Agarwal
Vrs. The General Manager, Hindustan Steels Ltd.,
AIR 1970 SC 1150 that, in the event any such point
is pleaded but not canvassed during course of
argument, the remedy lies with the appellant to
apply for review of the judgment before the same
Court and there is absolutely no scope for
entertaining such issues in a writ appeal."
7.4. In Wander Ltd. Vrs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC
727 following is the observation:
"14. The appeals before the Division Bench were
against the exercise of discretion by the Single
Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court
will not interfere with the exercise of discretion
of the court of first instance and substitute its
own discretion except where the discretion has
been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily,
or capriciously or perversely or where the court
had ignored the settled principles of law
regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory
injunctions. An appeal against exercise of
discretion is said to be an appeal on principle.
Appellate court will not reassess the material
and seek to reach a conclusion different from
the one reached by the court below if the one
reached by that court was reasonably possible
on the material. The appellate court would
normally not be justified in interfering with the
exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the
ground that if it had considered the matter at the
trial stage it would have come to a contrary
conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by
the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner
the fact that the appellate court would have taken a
different view may not justify interference with the
trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to
these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers
(Mysore) Private Ltd. Vrs. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3
SCR 713 = AIR 1960 SC 1156: (SCR 721)
„*** These principles are well established, but as has
been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles
Osenton & Co. Vrs. Jhanaton, 1942 AC 130:
„*** the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal
of an order made by a judge below in the exercise
of his discretion is well established, and any
difficulty that arises is due only to the application
of well settled principles in an individual case'. ***'
***"
7.5. In Anindita Mohanty Vrs. The Senior Regional Manager,
H.P. Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar, 2020 (II) ILR-CUT 398 this
Court had the occasion to examine the scope of intra-
Court appeal and observed as follows:
"*** Let us first examine the power of the Division Bench
while entertaining a Letters Patent appeal against the
judgment/order of the Single Judge. This writ appeal has
been nomenclatured as an application under Article 4 of
the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of
the Letters Patent Act, 1992. Letters Patent of the Patna
High Court has been made applicable to this Court by
virtue of Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Letters Patent
Appeal is an intra-Court appeal where under the Letters
Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its
own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as vested
in the Single Bench. (Ref: (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases
52, Baddula Lakshmaiah Vrs. Shri Anjaneya Swami
Temple). The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal
should not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the
learned Single Judge of the Court unless it is shown to be
based on no evidence, perverse, palpably unreasonable or
inconsistent with any particular position in law. Thisscope
of interference is within a narrow compass.Appellate
jurisdiction under Letters Patent is really a corrective
jurisdiction and it is used rarely only to correct errors, if
any made.
In the case of B. Venkatamuni Vrs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram
Singh reported in (2006) 13 Supreme Court Cases 449, it
is held that in an intra-Court appeal, the Division Bench
undoubtedly may be entitled to reappraise both questions
of fact and law, but entertainment of a letters patent
appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench
would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a
finding of fact arrived at by the Single Judge. Even a
Court of first appeal which is the final Court of appeal on
fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint.
Similar view was taken in the case of Umabai Vrs.
Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan reported in (2005) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 243. In the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax Vrs. Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Work Private
Limited reported in (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 538, it
is held that the jurisdiction of the Division Bench in a writ
appeal is primarily one of adjudication of questions of
law. Findings of fact recorded concurrently by the
authorities under the Act concerned (Income Tax Act) and
also in the first round of the writ proceedings by the
learned Single Judge are not to be lightly disturbed. Thus
a writ appeal is an appeal on principle where the legality
and validity of the judgment and/or order of the Single
Judge is tested and it can be set aside only when there is
a patent error on the face of the record or the judgment is
against established or settled principle of law. If two
views are possible and a view, which is reasonable
and logical, has been adopted by a Single Judge,
the other view, howsoever appealing may be to the
Division Bench; it is the view adopted by the Single
Judge, which would, normally be allowed to prevail.
If the discretion has been exercised by the Single
Judge in good faith and after giving due weight to
relevant matters and without being swayed away by
irrelevant matters and if two views are possible on
the question, then also the Division Bench in writ
appeal should not interfere, even though it would
have exercised its discretion in a different manner,
were the case come initially before it. The exercise of
discretion by the Single Judge should manifestly be
wrong which would then give scope of interference to the
Division Bench."
7.6. Significant it is to note that the respondent Nos.1 to 6
have not come up in intra-Court appeal challenging the
Judgment of the learned Single Judge. The opposite
party No.7 in the writ petition who stood second in the
selection came forward to question the veracity of the
decision of the learned Single Judge.
7.7. Basic ground of challenge by the appellant in the writ
appeal is that:
"B) For that the Notification dated 17.01.2023 clearly
stipulates that the candidate must be married/
widow/divorce and must be a resident of that
village from which she is proposing to be selected as
a Asha Karmi, but the opposite party No.7 is not the
residence of that village Mulida and Pathuria;
besides this she could not able to produce the
required document that is order of divorce within
due time, therefore Asha Selection Committee rightly
rejected her candidature but the Hon‟ble Court
without properly considering the notification and
Guideline, quashed the selection list which is
completely illegal and not tenable in the eye of law."
7.8. As has already been observed the respondent No.7
furnished document showing that her case for divorce
was pending before the learned Family Court and the
Office of the Tahasildar issued residential certificate in
favour of the respondent No.7. No impeachable
document has been laid by the appellant or the other
respondents to counter such eminent fact available on
record. The learned Single Judge having analysed the
evidence available on record taking cognizance of
Revised Asha Guidelines, there is little scope left for this
Court to meddle with the Judgment dated 16.05.2025
rendered in W.P.(C) No. 34394 of 2023.
Conclusion:
8. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on records,
the arguments advanced vis-a-vis grounds of appeal it
transpires that both the reasons, viz., the respondent
No.7 is not daughter-in-law of Mulida village under
Basta P.S. and document showing that she is divorcee,
assigned by the Asha Selection Committe in its Meeting
dated 06.10.2023 for rejecting her candidature for the
post of Asha cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
8.1. First and foremost, there is no requirement under the
Revised Asha Guidelines nor the Notice No.43, dated
17.01.2023 does not envisage placing evidence that the
candidates should be daughter-in-law of the subject-
village. On the contrary, it is manifest from the said
documents that the candidate must be woman either
married, widow or divorcee. There is ample evidence on
record to show, as observed by the learned Single Judge,
that the respondent No.7 was separated from husband
and her case for divorce was sub judice in the learned
Family Court. In fact, subsequently the said case
culminated in passing of decree of divorce. So far as
residence is concerned, it is the choice of a woman to
prefer residence. In the case at hand, to corroborate
evidence that she is resident of Mulida village, the
respondent No.7 produced declaration certificate from
the villagers. This apart, another document, i.e.,
Resident Certificate dated 20.01.2023 issued from the
Office of the Tahasildar was furnished before the
Committee to appreciate that she is resident of Mulida
village. This evidence, as reflected in the representations
dated 09.10.2023 submitted to the Collector, Balasore
and Competent Authority of Basta CHC, remained
unimpeached.
8.2. Further, it cannot be gainsaid that merely because a
woman got married, she is bound to reside in the
matrimonial house. It is her choice of abode whether to
stay in her parental abode for any good or bad reasons.
Circumstances may arise when a married woman even
prefers to stay in her parental house for any period of
her choice with an understanding with her family
members. A choice and will of a woman to exercise
residential choice at her paternal house should not be
viewed through patriarchal or matrimonial prism in
order to deny her the residential status.
8.3. It is undeniable that human rights instruments, such as
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), assert the right of everyone liberty and security
of person, and freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of a State. While these documents do
not explicitly make invidious distinction between
"patriarchal" or "matrimonial" homes, they establish the
fundamental right to choose one's place of abode. It may
be put in different perspective that discrimination based
on gender in matter of residence seems to be
impermissible and unwholesome. If residing in a
particular home (whether patriarchal or matrimonial)
poses a threat of violence, harassment, or coercion, the
woman's right to choose an alternative, safe residence
must be upheld.
8.4. To say that candidature of the respondent No.7 for the
post of Asha is liable to be rejected would not be beyond
reproach, in absence of material to the contrary available
on record and in the subsistence of inviolable document
of the Office of Tahasildar issuing Residential Certificate
in favour of the respondent No.7 and the fact being
corroborated by the declaration of the villagers.
9. In the wake of the above observations and for the
reasons ascribed supra and in the light of discussions
made in the foregoing paragraphs as also bearing in
mind the limited scope of the Division Bench while
sitting in intra-Court appeal filed under Article 4 of the
Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause 10 of
the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of
Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2
of Chapter-VIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa,
1948, for interdicting the view expressed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court finds no plausible reason to
differ from the conclusions arrived at as reflected in the
Judgment dated 16.05.2025 rendered in W.P.(C) No.
34394 of 2023.
10. In the result, having found no infirmity, perversity and
illegality in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge,
the writ appeal, sans merit, stands dismissed with no
order as to costs. Pending interlocutory application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
I agree.
(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Designation: Personal Assistant
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
The 20th November, 2025//Bichi/MRS
Date: 20-Nov-2025 14:23:17
