[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kuni Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others ...... Opp. ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3863 of 2025
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
Kuni Mohapatra ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha and Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_____________________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : M/s. J.R. Dash, K.L. Dash,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. N. Patnaik
[Addl. Government Advocate]
M/s. S. Mishra & P. Behera
Advocates
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
16.01.2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order
dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate (ADM), Subarnapur in AWW Appeal No.2 of
2015 whereby said appeal, filed by the petitioner was
rejected.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that on
27.01.2010, the CDPO, Ulunda issued an advertisement for
engagement of Anganwadi Workers of different centers
including Lehedi-2 anganwadi center. The petitioner and
others, including opposite party Nos.5 and 6 applied
pursuant to such advertisement. In the selection process
which followed, opposite party No.6 was selected. Said
selection was challenged by the petitioner before this Court
in W.P.(C) No.16800 of 2010, which was disposed of on
21.02.2011 directing the Sub-Collector, Birmaharajpur to
dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The Sub-
Collector treated the representation as an appeal being
registered as ICDS Appeal Case No.2 of 2011 and disposed
of the same on 08.07.2011 directing the CDPO to award
extra marks to the petitioner on account of her disability.
The CDPO however did not implement such order and again
selected opposite party No.6 for which the petitioner
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8100 of 2014. The writ
petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on
25.04.2014 granting liberty to file further appeal.
Accordingly, Appeal No.2 of 2015 was filed. Since the ADM
found that the opposite party No.6 had been illegally
selected, he directed her disengagement and remanded the
matter to the selection committee to engage the petitioner
observing all formalities. Opposite party No. 6 challenged
the order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.9957 of 2015. This
Court, finding that the principles of natural justice had not
been complied with, remanded the matter vide order dated
29.04.2024 for re-hearing of the appeal. The appeal was
thereafter heard and disposed of by the impugned order.
According to the petitioner, she having secured
more marks than opposite party No. 6 ought to have been
engaged. Opposite party No. 6 was engaged only on the
basis of her experience which is not permissible. In any
case, opposite party No.6 not having continued as an
Organizer/Helper could not have been appointed. Since
there was no provision for engagement of Organizer in the
ICDS program since 1975, the so called engagement of the
opposite party No. 6 as such also cannot be treated as valid.
On such facts the petitioner prays for quashment of the
impugned order and for a direction to the authorities to
appoint her as Anganwadi worker.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-
opposite parties. It is inter alia stated that originally the
physical disability certificate of the petitioner was not
produced before the selection committee for which marks in
such regard could not be added in her favour while
preparing the merit list. The opposite party No.6, despite
securing less marks than the petitioner was engaged as she
had more than five years experience as Organizer. She was
engaged and received honorarium as organizer from
January, 2001 to May, 2007 which is reflected in the cash
book of Ulunda ICDS. Taking into consideration the above
fact, she was selected and such selection is in consonance
with the relevant guidelines.
4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the
private opposite party No.6. It is stated that the opposite
party No.6 satisfied all the eligibility criteria laid down in the
guidelines dated 02.05.2007. Clause-4 of the advertisement
provides that Anganwadi Helper and Organizer having
requisite qualification and found to be suitable shall be
selected provided they worked for more than five years. The
opposite party No. 6 has worked as an Organizer for five
years in Lehedi sub-center and thereafter as Helper in
Lehedi-2 Anganwadi center, she was therefore, rightly
selected.
5. Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel
for the opposite party No.6.
6. Mr. Dash would argue that the petitioner having
secured more marks than opposite party No.6 ought to have
been selected. The authorities have wrongly interpreted the
relevant provision of the guidelines to engage opposite party
No.6. In any case, she was never continuing as Anganwadi
Helper/Organizer prior to the advertisement and therefore,
the benefit cannot be given to her.
7. Mr. Patnaik, learned State Counsel has attempted
to justify the decision of the ADM as per the impugned order
by submitting that Clause-4 of the guidelines dated
02.05.2007 only lays down that an Anganwadi
Helper/Organizer must have worked for more than five
years. It does not say that she should have been continuing
as such at the time of the advertisement.
8. Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
private opposite party No. 6 makes similar arguments as the
State Counsel and submits that ample proof was placed
before the Appellate Authority establishing that opposite
party No.6 had worked for more than five years as an
Organizer and thereafter as Helper. The guidelines does not
require that such a person should have been continuing at
the time of making application. He further submits that
being thus selected, the opposite party No.6 has continued
to discharge her duties satisfactorily for more than 13 years.
9. The facts of the case being undisputed, the only
point that arises for consideration is the interpretation of
Clause-4 of the guidelines dated 02.05.2007, which is
reproduced below:-
"Anganwadi Helper and Organiser if having the
requisite qualification and are found to be suitable
shall be selected as Anganwadi worker provided
they have worked for more than five years."
10. A plain reading of the above clause would make it
clear that there is in fact no requirement that the
Helper/Organizer must be continuing as such before
applying for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. What the
clause provides is, she should have experience of working as
Helper/Organizer for five years. The argument made by Mr.
Dash to the contrary cannot therefore be accepted.
11. The petitioner has challenged the finding of
Opposite Party No.6 to the extent that the same was not
produced earlier, but has not specifically disputed the
finding of the Appellate Authority that opposite party No.6
had in fact worked as Organizer from January, 2001 to May
2007 that is for a period of service of 77 months as reflected
in the cash book of Ulunda ICDS office. It has been further
observed that the cash book is a permanent document, the
Appellate Authority therefore rightly relied upon the same
and this Court finds no reason to take a different view.
12. Thus, as thing stand, the petitioner though
secured more marks, the selection committee thought it
proper to select the opposite party No. 6 mainly, considering
her experience as Organizer as well as Helper. It is trite law
that inclusion in (select) merit list confers no right to
appointment. It is for the Selection Committee to take an
informed decision as to who among the candidates finding
place in the merit list would be best suitable for the job. As
has been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the
State, even if the petitioner had secured more marks but
considering the nature of the work to be discharged and the
experience of opposite party No.6, she was preferred over
the petitioner. It is significant that she worked as Organizer
for more than five years and Helper for two years and
thereafter as Anganwadi Worker for nearly fifteen years.
This Court concurs with the decision of the Selection
Committee as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and finds
no reason to interfere in the matter.
13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
therefore finds no merit in the writ petition, which is
dismissed.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 16th January, 2026/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack
Date: 16-Jan-2026 18:06:54
