Orissa High Court
Rinki Kathar vs State Of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 25244 of 2025
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
Rinki Kathar ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite Parties
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. D.K.Mohapatra, Advocate,
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, AGA
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
22nd September, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This matter was listed for admission yet on consent
of parties, same is taken up for final disposal.
2. This is the fourth journey of the petitioner to this
Court for redressal of her grievance .The facts of the case
are that as per the advertisement issued on 07.02.2009
by the CDPO, Dhankauda for engagement of Anganwadi
workers, the petitioner submitted her application in
respect of Ambaghura Anganwadi Centre under
Pandiapali revenue village. She was duly selected in the
selection process and was engaged as Anganwadi worker
vide order dated 11.06.2009 of the CDPO. While
continuing as such, the Collector, Sambalpur, vide order
dated 03.08.2009 directed her disengagement on the
allegation of some outsiders to the effect that she does
not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre.
Said order was followed by order dated 10.08.2009 of the
CDPO formally disengaging her. The petitioner challenged
the order of the Collector before this Court in W.P(C) No.
12166 of 2009. This Court by order dated 20.08.2009,
quashed the impugned order and directed the Collector to
rehear the matter after granting opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner appeared before the Collector and put forth
her submission but the Collector; by order dated
24.03.2010 reiterated his earlier order. The petitioner
approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 7749 of 2010
wherein, vide order dated 13.03.2023 the order of the
Collector was quashed and the matter was remanded to
the Sub-Collector for hearing. The Sub-Collector heard
the matter and rejected the petitioner's appeal vide order
dated 03.07.2023. The petitioner again approached this
Court in W.P.(C). No.18126 of 2024. This Court, by order
dated 10.01.2025 quashed the order of the Sub-Collector
and remitted the matter for consideration afresh. As
such, the matter was heard again by the Sub-Collector
but by order dated 08.08.2025, the claim of the petitioner
was rejected. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the
present writ application with the following prayer:
"Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to-
(i) to Admit the writ application;
(ii) Call for record;
(iii) Issue Rule nisi calling upon the Opp.
Parties to show cause as to why the order of
disengagement order dated 10.08.2009 of the
C.D.P.O under Annexure-5 in respect of petitioner
only and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the
Sub-Collector under Annexure-13 shall not be
quashed.
(iv) And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause
or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari in quashing the impugned order
dated 10.08.2009 of the C.D.P.O. under Annexure-
5 in respect of petitioner only and order dated
08.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector under
Annexure-13.
(v) And issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner to continue as
Anganwadi Workers in Ambaghura Anganwadi
Centre under C.D.P.O. Dhankauda in the District of
Sambalpur in terms of appointment order dated
11.06.2009 by regularizing the service of the
petitioner for all consequential benefit purpose.
And this Hon'ble Court may pass any other
order/orders as would be deemed just and proper
by this Hon'ble Court;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray".
3. Heard Mr. D.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the
State.
4. Mr. Mohapatra would argue that the guidelines dated
02.05.2007 permit a resident of the same village to apply
for selection as Anganwadi Worker. In the instant case,
no person from the service area had applied for
engagement. Therefore, the petitioner was fully eligible as
per the guidelines. The Government has issued necessary
clarification in this regard, which the Sub-Collector took
note of in the impugned order but went on to reject the
claim of the petitioner. According to the Mr. Mohapatra,
the impugned order being contrary to the guidelines
cannot be sustained.
5. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State counsel though supported
the impugned order yet on query posed by this Court
fairly submitted that as per the guidelines and
clarification issued by the Government subsequently, a
person from the same village is also eligible to apply
though preference is to be given to a person residing
within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. He
further fairly submits that the petitioner belongs to the
revenue village in which the Anganwadi Centre is
situated.
6. From the contentions raised, it is evident that the sole
question that falls for consideration is whether the
petitioner was eligible for engagement as Anganwadi
worker of the centre in question or not. There is no
dispute that the petitioner was selected in a due selection
process and was engaged. There is also no dispute that
the petitioner belongs to Pandiapali revenue village and
that Ambaghura Anganwadi Centre comes under the said
village. In fact, the Sub-Collector, in the impugned order
has specifically stated that Ambaghura is a hamlet of
Pandiapali revenue village. Such being the factual
position, it would be appropriate to refer to the
Government guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of which Clause
1, being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:
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 Centre area."
Thus, prima facie, a resident of the village is eligible to
apply for engagement as Anganwadi worker. Apparently,
in view of some confusion arising in this regard, the
Government of Odisha issued a clarification on
01.03.2008 which is reproduced below:
Government of Orissa
Woman & Child Development Department
No. IV IC.S.r.154/07: 7161/WCD., dt.1.3.08
From:
Shri N.Behera,
Addl. Secretary to Government
To
The C.D.P.O., Gania, Nayagarh.
Sub:- Clarification on selection/engagement of AWW
Ref:- Your memo No. 462 dt. 12.12.07
Sir/Madam,
With reference to the above noted subject,
I am directed to State as hereunder.
i) According to paragraph-1 of the Revised
Guidelines, the AWW should be resident of the AWC
area. If no suitable candidate is available in the
AWC area, then candidates of the village could be
considered.
ii) Residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar
should be entertained.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-1.3.08
Addl. Secretary to Government.
OFFICE OF THE DIST. MAGISTRATE AND Collector: Sambalpur
Memo No. 901/SW Dt.30.06.09
Copy forwarded to all CDPOs of Sambalpur
District for their information and necessary action.
Sd/-2.7.09
Dist. Social Welfare Officer,
Sambalpur.
Thus, it is clear that if no suitable candidate is available
in the Anganwadi Centre service area then candidate of
the village can be considered. There is nothing in the
impugned order to suggest that there was any applicant
from within the service area of the Anganwadi Centre.
Therefore, the petitioner was eligible for engagement. The
Collector, acting upon objections raised by some
outsiders directed disengagement of the petitioner but in
view of the guidelines dated 02.05.2007 followed by the
clarification dated 01.03.2008, there is no way by which
the petitioner can be said to be not eligible. Interestingly,
the Sub-Collector has referred to the guidelines dated
02.05.2007 as well as the clarification dated 01.03.2008
but referring to some judgments of this Court held that
the applicant must belong to the service area of the
centre.
7. There can be no quarrel with regard to the ratio
decided in the said cases, which is to be effect that
ordinarily, a resident from within the service area of the
centre in question should be selected so as to better
perform the duties assigned to an Anganwadi worker but
even in one of the cases relied upon by the Sub-Collector
namely, Sasmita Sahoo vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.
(WP (C) No.2342 of 2009), this Court referring to the
clarification issued by the Government held that in case
no suitable candidate is available from the said area,
then applicants from the village in which the Anganwadi
Centre area situates may be accepted even though the
applicant is not a resident of the service area. The Sub-
Collector has evidently mis-interpreted the ratio decided
in the cases cited by him to hold that the petitioner was
not eligible, being a resident of the revenue village and
not specifically of the service area of the centre in
question.
8. From what has been narrated before, the above
finding of the Sub-Collector runs contrary to the
guidelines as well as the clarification issued by the
Government, more so as there is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner was preferred over an applicant
from the service area of the centre in question during
selection. The impugned order is therefore, rendered
unsustainable in the eye of law.
9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
application is allowed. The impugned order dated
08.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector and order of
disengagement dated 10.08.2009 of the CDPO are hereby
set aside. The concerned authorities are directed to re-
engage the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in
Ambaghura Anganwadi Centre in terms of the order of
engagement dated 11.06.2009 within four weeks from the
date of production of certified copy of this order by the
petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be
entitled to any financial benefits for the period during
which she was disengaged but the said period shall be
counted towards other service benefits.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
