Orissa High Court

Jharana Mallik @ Malik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      W.P.(C). No. 17284 of 2024

      (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
      of India)

      Jharana Mallik @ Malik          ......                   Petitioner

                                  -Versus-

      State of Odisha & Others ....               Opposite Parties
      _____________________________________________

        For Petitioner    : Mr. S.Dash, Advocate,

         For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA

                            P.K.Panda, Advocate (O.P No.6)
      _______________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                               JUDGMENT

31st October, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner in this writ application seeks to

challenge the advertisement dated 05.07.2024 issued by

the CDPO, Korei Block in the district of Jajpur for

engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Muslimsahi

Anganwadi Centre in Goleipur Village.

2. The facts lie in a narrow compass:

Originally, an advertisement was issued by the CDPO,

Korei on 12.05.2017 for engagement of Anganwadi

Workers in 10 Anganwadi Centres including Muslimsahi

Anganwadi Centre of Kelagadia in Goleipur village. Four

candidates including the present petitioner and Opposite

Party No.6 applied pursuant to the said advertisement.

The selection committee fixed 07.06.2017 as the date of

scrutiny of applications and verification of original

documents. On the scheduled date however, the scrutiny

and verification could not be done and was rescheduled

to 09.06.2017. Said rescheduling was done without

notice to the candidates. It came to light subsequently

that Opposite Party No.6 had been selected as Anganwadi

Worker of the centre. Said selection was challenged by

the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 21137 of

2017, which was disposed of by order dated 09.10.2017

granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal before

the appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner

preferred AWW Misc. appeal Case No. 7 of 2017 before

the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jajpur.

The appellate authority, after hearing the parties

and upon consideration of the documents and materials

on record was satisfied that the selection committee had

not followed due procedure of law inasmuch as the

rescheduling of the date of scrutiny and verification was

done without notice to the other candidates. The appeal

was thus allowed by cancelling the selection of Opposite

Party No.6 with a direction for fresh selection of

Anganwadi Worker. The present Opposite Party No.6

challenged the aforesaid order of the appellate authority

before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 6704 of 2018. By

judgment dated 08.02.2024, a coordinate Bench of this

Court, being satisfied that the date of deferment of

scrutiny of applications had not been published, held

that the entire process of selection is vitiated as other

candidates did not have a chance to apply. As such, the

order of the appellate authority was not interfered with.

The CDPO thereafter published a fresh advertisement on

05.07.2024 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers of 3

Anganwadi Centres including Muslimsahi Anganwadi

Centre. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ

application with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, prayed that, Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, call upon the Opp.parties to show cause or showing insufficient cause, may. further be pleased to quash the Advertisement No.464 dated 05.07.2024 vide Annexure 3 issued by the opposite party No.5 and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased direct the Opp.party No.5 to conduct onward action of verification of document and testimonials of the candidates applied for the post of A.W. of Goleipur Muslimsahi A.W. Centre and appoint the successful candidate.

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

It is contended that the selection of Opposite Party

No.6 being cancelled as per order passed by the appellate

authority in appeal and the direction to go for fresh

selection implies that the selection process already

undertaken should have been revived and taken to its

logical end instead of going for fresh advertisement.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State

Opposite Parties. Reference has been made to the Govt. of

Odisha in W & CD Department letter No. 01.10.2010 to

state that there is no concept of re-engagement or

engagement without selection and that if any vacancy

arises out of death, non-joining, disengagement,

resignation etc, fresh selection is to be made. Since the

appellate authority directed to go for fresh selection and

the said order was confirmed by this Court, the CDPO

rightly published the fresh advertisement.

4. Counter has also been filed by Opposite Party No.6

stating therein that the petitioner is not eligible to apply

for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of the centre in

question as she is not a resident of the said area, which

is proved from House Survey Report that does not

contain her name among the family members of her

father Rabi Mallick, having House No. 102. Further by

the time of publication of the advertisement dated

12.05.2017, the petitioner had been married to one Siba

Jena belonging to Jajpur block but not Korei. She

obtained a fake certificate and filed a false affidavit only

to apply for the post.

5. Heard Mr. S.K.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr.

P.K.Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party

No.6.

6. Mr. Dash would argue that the selection process

initiated pursuant to the original advertisement was

found to be vitiated for non-following of proper procedure

by the CDPO, inasmuch as the deferment of the date of

scrutiny and verification was never intimated to the

candidates. Opposite Party No.6 was somehow engaged

behind the back of the other candidates. Taking note of

these serious lapses, the appellate authority rightly

cancelled the engagement of Opposite Party No.6. The

further direction to go for fresh selection does not mean

publication of a fresh advertisement but to take the

original selection process to its logical end. The fresh

advertisement therefore, is not in consonance with the

letter and spirit of the order passed by the appellate

authority as confirmed by this Court in the earlier writ

application.

7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned State counsel would submit

that once a vacancy arises, the same can be filled up only

by undertaking a fresh selection, which means

publication of a fresh advertisement giving opportunity to

all eligible candidates. Mr. Pattnaik has referred to the

clarification issued by the Government vide letter dated

01.10.2010 in this regard. He further submits that since

the entire selection process was found to have been

vitiated, it was necessary to undertake fresh selection,

which implies fresh advertisement.

8. Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opposite

Party No.6 would submit that the petitioner has no locus

standi to challenge the fresh advertisement as she is not

eligible to apply not being a resident of the service area of

the Anganwadi Centre in question. In any case, in the

previous selection, the Opposite Party No.6 was found to

be the most suitable candidate and had therefore been

engaged but her engagement was cancelled because of

technical grounds but not for lack of merit.

9. As is evident from the foregoing narration of facts and

contentions raised, the interpretation of the order passed

by the appellate authority is what falls for consideration

in the present writ application. The operative portion of

the order passed by the appellate authority is reproduced

below. Perusal of the order passed by the appellate

authority reveals that after taking note of the pleadings of

the parties, he arrived at the following conclusion;

"Heard. On perusal of appeal memo, written statement of the appellant and respondent no. 1 and 4, the following facts have come to light.

a) That the CDPO, Korei had Issued a notification inviting applications for selection of AWWs in ten nos of anganwadi centre including this Muslimsahi centre, Goleipur. In response to that four applicants namely Gahara Ruksana Bibi, Jharana Mallick, Ms. Soyaba Begum & Ms. Binupha Begum filed application for the post. The application was invited upto 06.06.2017. The date of scrutiny was fixed to 07.06.2017. But, scrutiny was postponed to 09.06.2017, which was not duly published in the centre, as revealed from the available facts.

Thereby three candidates could not attend the verification of documents' In the CDPO office. They were shown absent. The CDPO admitted that she had personally told all the candidates present regarding defer of verification date, but she could not remember who was present and who was absent. The CDPO has further stated a copy of the notice was sent to the block office for publication. She has not stated, if copy of the notice was published in the proposed centre or not. After that three candidates of the Muslimsahi were shown absent verification was conducted in respect of Ruksana Bibi, respondent no. 1, the sole candidate. Further, it is revealed from the statement of the CDPO that on 27.06.2017, the appellant had come to her to file objection against the provisional select list published on 22.06.2017. But, Instead of receiving the objection, the CDPO stated that in the absence of the committee, the objection of document was not entertained. From the narration of the above facts, It is clear that in selection of Ruksana Bibi as anganwadi worker of Muslimsahi centre In Golipur is a predetermined fact and hence illegal for which other three candidates have been deprived of natural Justice, which is illegal and having malafide intention.

ORDER In view of the facts, discussion and circumstances stated above, this court strongly feels that the action of the CDPO and the selection committee has not been conducted in due procedure of law. This court therefore is inclined to cancel the selection of Ruksana Bibi as AWW of Goeipur Muslimsahi and order for fresh selection of anganwadi worker for the centre. The appeal is allowed."

Thus, the operating portion as quoted above has to be

read in the context of the findings of the appellate

authority under paragraph 6 of the order. It is evident

that the appellate authority was satisfied that deferment

of the date of the scrutiny of applications and verification

of documents from 07.06.2017 to 09.06.2017 was not

published nor intimated to the 3 candidates except

Ruksana Bibi (Opp. Party No.6). As a result, on the date

of scrutiny, only Ruksana Bibi was present and

verification was conducted, while the other three

candidates were shown absent. Thus, finding that the

other three candidates had been deprived illegally, the

appellate authority held that the selection had not been

conducted following due procedure of law. In such

background, the selection of Ruksana Bibi was cancelled.

Significantly, no direction was issued to go for fresh

advertisement. Further, the coordinate Bench of this

Court held as fallows in the earlier writ application:

"After careful perusal of the facts and submissions, the CDPO has not caused the publication of the deferral of the date of the scrutiny of applications. On account of this, the entire process of selection stands vitiated as the other candidates did not have a chance to apply for the post of AWW. Moreover, the CDPO did not entertain the complaints of the other candidates. On account of this, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jajpur."

Thus, what transpires is that the process of selection was

held to be vitiated and was therefore interfered with by

cancelling the selection of Opp. Party No.6. Learned State

counsel would like to the Court to hold that this amounts

to disengagement of the selected candidate, Ruksana

Biwi -Opp. Party No.6 and therefore, the Government

clarification vide letter dated 01.10.2010 would apply in

full force. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant

portion of the clarificatory letter dated 01.10.2010, which

is reproduced below:

FROM Smt. Durgesh Nandini Sahoo, OAS (1) Under Secretary to Government TO Smt. Durgesh Nandini Sahoo, OAS (1) Under Secretary to Government The Additional Government Advocate. Office of the AG. Odisha, Cuttack Sub-WP (C) No 138/10 filed by Kabita Swain Vrs State of Odisha and others

Sir With reference to your letter No 40959, dt. 24.09.2010 on the subject noted above I am directed to send herewith a copy of the instruction for appraisal of Hon'ble High Court and further necessary action at your end Sd/-

                                             Under Secretary to Government
   Sl.   Points                       Instruction
   No.
   1     What course is available      There is no concept of re-engagement or
         In case of any vacancy        engagement (without of death, non
         arising out of death/ non-    joining. selection) if any vacancy arises
         joining/disengagement/        out disengagement, resignation etc Fresh
         resignation of any            selection will be made for the concerned
         Anganwadi Worker              AWCS
   2     Why merit list is             Revised guideline for selection of

prepared if the list looses Anganwadi Worker dt. 02. 05.2007 does

it force after initial not provide any scope for preparation of appointment/1" panel list of selection for future appointment engagement 3 What reason is there for Mentioned against Point No 2 non-maintenance of merit list.

4 What is the reason Mentioned against Point No 2 inviting fresh selection to fill up the casual vacancy, when one merit list is available with the authorities.

XX XX XX XX XX

It is evident that in case any vacancy arises due to

disengagement (and other reasons), fresh selection is to

be made. This Court, after taking note of the facts that

led to cancellation of the selection of Opp. Party No.6 is

unable to persuade itself to agree with the contention

advanced by the State counsel that the same amounts to

disengagement. It would rather be more reasonable to

hold that the selection of Opp. Party No.6 being found to

have been made in a manner contrary to the procedure

was cancelled. This implies her selection was bad from

the inception, that is, void ab initio and non est. This

cannot be equated with the positive act of disengagement

of any incumbent for whatever reason. There is a world of

difference between the two scenarios.