Orissa High Court
Santosini Mahakud vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 17411 OF 2016
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
Santosini Mahakud .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. H.B. Dash and A.K. Saa, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate.
M/s. Anirudha Das, Amarendra Das, A.
Das, S.K. Rout, S.C. Mishra, D.K. Mishra,
D.P. Swain & S.P. Mohanty, Advocates
[ for O.P. No.5]
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
7th November, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner in the present writ application
questions the correctness of order dated 12.08.2016
passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Angul
in Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2011 whereby, said appeal filed
by the present opposite party No.5 was allowed, the
petitioner's engagement as Anganwadi Worker was set
aside and the selection committee was directed to engage
the next eligible candidate out of the selection list.
2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an
advertisement dated 02.03.2010 issued by the C.D.P.O.,
Athamallik for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of
Badatikira Anganwadi Center, the petitioner, opposite party
No.5 and other candidates submitted their applications. In
the selection process, the petitioner was found suitable
among all candidates and was therefore, selected for
engagement. She was thereafter issued with order of
engagement on 25.03.2011 and since then, has been
continuing as Anganwadi Worker. The present opposite
party No.5 challenged her selection by filing the
aforementioned appeal before the ADM on the ground that
she does not belong to the Anganwadi Center area.
2.1 During hearing of the appeal, the CDPO,
Athamallik submitted para-wise report stating that the
petitioner ordinarily resides in village Baragaon and that
the Anganwadi Center of Badatikira is within the said
revenue village. This was certified by the Tahasildar in the
resident certificate issued in her favour.
2.2 The petitioner contends that she and her family
are residing within the jurisdiction of Badatikira
Anganwadi Center over Plot No. 116/1286 under holding
No. 95/70 since 2010. The above fact was physically
verified by the CDPO, Athamallik during spot verification.
2.3 The ADM however, directed a joint enquiry to be
conducted by the Tahasildar, Athamallik and CDPO,
Athamallik. According to the petitioner, the said joint
enquiry was not conducted properly and it was stated that
the facts stated in the para-wise report of CDPO,
Athamallik are different from the resident certificate
produced by her earlier.
2.4 According to the petitioner, Badatikira is not a
revenue village for which no resident certificate can be
issued showing her residence therein, which is actually a
hamlet under Baragaon Revenue village. It is further
contended that the petitioner's father-in-law and other
family members are residing over Plot No. 304 under Khata
No.4, which comes under Baragaon-II Anganwadi Center
but the petitioner along with her husband is residing
separately from her ancestral family over plot
No.116/1286, which comes under the Badatikira
Anganwadi Center.
2.5. Though all the above facts were placed before the
ADM, the same were not considered and basing entirely on
the joint enquiry report, the appeal was allowed by setting
aside the engagement of the petitioner.
2.6 Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this
writ application with the following prayer.
"Therefore, in view of the above said facts
and circumstances, the petitioner most humbly
prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously
pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and call
for the records of Misc. Appeal case No.29/2011
from the office of the Additional District Magistrate,
Angul and after hearing the parties may further be
pleased to quash the order dtd.12.8.2016 and
directed the Opp. Parties to allow the present
petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Worker of
Badatikira Anganwadi Centre.
And pass other order/ orders, as may be
deemed just and proper.
And for the said act of kindness, the
petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the State opposite
parties it is admitted that Badatikira Anganwadi Center is
within Baragaon revenue village. The joint enquiry was
conducted in presence of the petitioner as well as opposite
party No.5. As per the said report, the petitioner had
obtained a resident certificate dated 11.03.2010, wherein
the RI report speaks that she was residing over Plot No.
304 under Holding no.4 of village Baragaon which comes
under the jurisdiction of Baragaon-II Anganwadi Center.
The claim that the petitioner is residing over Plot
No.116/1286 is denied by stating that she and her family
reside over Plot No. 304 under holding No.4. It is further
stated that nobody challenged the residential status of the
petitioner during selection and the selection committee
unanimously selected her basing on her merit. It is only
during the appeal that direction was issued to conduct a
joint enquiry, which being conducted, revealed that the
petitioner is a resident within the jurisdiction of Badatikira
Anganwadi Center.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder seeking to
refute the averments made in the counter affidavit. It is
stated that the opposite party No.5 never objected before
the selection committee during the process of selection.
From the joint enquiry it was revealed that opposite party
No.5 belongs to Khadala Sahi but her resident certificate
reveals that she belongs to village Kaintragarh under
Athamallik P.S. There is no notification that said village
comes within the service area of Badatikira Anganwadi
Center. The petitioner obtained resident certificate on the
basis of the ancestral house of her husband under
Baragaon revenue village, wherein she has been residing
over plot No. 116/1286 under holding No.95/70 since
2010. The ancestral land over Plot No. 304 in Khata No.-4
was sold on 05.05.2010. Accordingly, the CDPO had made
a field enquiry and submitted the residential status of the
petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner having secured the
highest mark and there being no objection to her
candidature at the time of selection, she was rightly
selected.
5. Heard Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government for
the State and Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel
appearing for opposite party No.5.
6. Mr. Dash would argue that the appeal filed by
the opposite party No.5 before the ADM was not
maintainable as it is not her case that she should have
been engaged in place of the petitioner. In fact she secured
only 36.26% marks whereas the petitioner secured 44.40%
marks. She cannot therefore, be treated as a person
aggrieved so as to challenge the selection and engagement
of the petitioner. It is further argued that the ADM could
not have directed for conducting a joint enquiry and
accepted such report on the face of clear assertion by the
CDPO in her para-wise report regarding residential status
of the petitioner. The resident certificate obtained by the
petitioner has never been challenged by any person. It is
finally argued that even otherwise, the petitioner has been
continuing as Anganwadi Worker since 25.03.2011 and
therefore, disengaging her at this stage would grossly
violate her right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned AGA argues that a
question being raised with regard to the residential status
of the petitioner, the ADM rightly directed a joint enquiry to
be conducted. The joint enquiry report revealed that the
petitioner is a resident of Badatikira-II Anganwadi Center.
As such her engagement was rightly set aside in appeal.
8. Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel for opposite
party No.5 would argue that as per the joint enquiry report
it is evident that opposite party No.5 is a resident of
Khadala Sahi (renamed as Harijan Sahi) which comes
within Badatikira Anganwadi Center. On the other hand,
the petitioner is a resident of Badatikira-II Anganwadi
Center area. It was clearly proved that the para-wise
comment of the CDPO was contrary to the resident
certificate produced by the petitioner.
9. Since the locus standi of the opposite party No.5
to challenge the selection of the petitioner has been raised,
it would be proper to consider the same at the outset. Copy
of the proceeding of the selection committee enclosed as
Annexure-6 to the writ application does not reveal the
marks secured by the individual candidates. There is no
other material on record in this regard. The petitioner has
raised a pertinent issue with regard to locus standi of
opposite party No.5. It is trite law that unless a person is
held to be aggrieved by a particular action/order, he
cannot ordinarily be permitted to question the same.
Nevertheless it is not disputed that opposite party No.5 was
one of the candidates. There is nothing on record to
suggest if opposite party No.5 had raised any objection to
the petitioner's candidature at the time of selection. She
however, filed an appeal specifically on the ground that the
petitioner is not a resident of service area. The appeal was
entertained. Significantly, the question of locus standi does
not appear to have been raised before the appellate
authority. This Court is therefore, unable to accept the
contention so raised.
10. Coming to the merits of the case, as already
stated, the dispute revolves around the question of
residence of the petitioner and opposite party No.5.
Admittedly a resident certificate was issued in favour of the
petitioner, which reveals that she is a resident of village
Baragaon. Copy of the resident certificate of opposite party
No.5, obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act is also
available on record, which shows that she is a resident of
village Kaintragarh in the district of Athamallik. In the joint
enquiry report, it is stated that Khadala Sahi forms part of
Kaintragarh revenue village. The additional Anganwadi
Center-Badatikira consists of Khadala Sahi, of which
opposite party No.5 is a resident. On the other hand, the
petitioner is said to be a resident of Baragaon-II Anganwadi
Center. It is stated that the para-wise comment of CDPO is
different from the resident certificate. It has not been
demonstrated as to how the para-wise comments of the
CDPO were wrong. There seems to some confusion in the
mind of the appellate authority inasmuch as he chose to
view the para-wise comments of the CDPO with suspicion
for the reason that the same mentions the petitioner as a
resident of Badatikira AWC which contradicts the resident
certificate which mentions her a resident of village
Baragaon. Now, it is common ground that Baragaon is the
revenue village while Badatikira is a hamlet thereof.
Obviously, a resident certificate could not have been issued
showing the petitioner a resident of Badatikira. It is stated
that the report of the CDPO is based on spot enquiry. This
assertion has not been denied by the opposite parties.
Therefore, it cannot be said that her para-wise report was
wrong or that the same was at variance from the resident
certificate. The ADM does not appear to have considered
the matter from the above perspective nor specified as to
how the report of the CDPO is incorrect. Moreover, he
appears to have proceeded on the erroneous notion that
Baragaon and Badatikira are separate individual villages,
whereas it is common ground that Badatikira is a hamlet
within Baragaon. It is evident from a perusal of the joint
enquiry report that Kamara Sahi and Badatikira are within
Baragaon revenue village. The report only specifies the
additional areas included within the Badatikira Anganwadi
Center. This Court is therefore, of the view that the report
of the CDPO which was based on her personal verification
at the spot could not have been brushed aside by the ADM.
On such ground, this Court holds that the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 7th November, 2025/`A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
