[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Soudamini Nag vs Child Development Project .... ... on 23 March, 2026

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No.2132 of 2026

                (In the matter of an application under Articles 226
              and 227 of the Constitution of India)



               Soudamini Nag                       ....              Petitioner
                                        -versus-
               Child Development Project ....                Opposite Parties
               Officer(CDPO),     Tarabha
               Block,    Subarnapur   and
               others

              Appeared in this case:-


                     For Petitioner       :        Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate

               For Opposite Parties       :                   Mr. G. Mohanty,
                                                    Learned Standing Counsel
                                                 (For the State Opposite Party
                                                                Nos.1,3 and 4)

                                                     Ms. Chandrana Tripathy,
                                                                     Advocate
                                                 (For the Opposite Party No.2)
               CORAM:
               JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

                                       JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 20.03.2026 / date of judgment : 23.03.2026

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner

praying for quashing the impugned Orders under Annexures-7, 10 and 11 passed by the Opposite Party

Nos.3, 4 and 1 respectively and to direct the Opposite Party

No.1 to re-engage the petitioner as an Anganwadi Helper in

Sagarpalli Anganwadi Centre under Kamsara

Grampanchayat of Sonepur District awarding exemplary

cost and damages against the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which

prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per

Advertisement No.2148 dated 21.10.2024 made by the

Child Development Project Officer, Tarbha(Opposite Party

No.1) (in short "the CDPO") for the selection of an

Anganwadi Helper of Sagarpalli Anganwadi Centre under

Kamsara Grampanchayat of Sonepur District, the

petitioner, Opposite Party No.2 along with others applied for

the same. Thereafter, the Selection Committee Members

selected to the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper of that

Sagarpalli Anganwadi Centre and then, she(petitioner) was

appointed as per letter dated 05.03.2025(Annexure-3) of the

CDPO, Tarbha, as the Anganwadi Helper of Sagarpalli

Anganwadi Centre and continued her work as such since

05.03.2025.

The Opposite Party No.2 challenged to the above

selection and appointment of the petitioner by filing an

Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025 before the Sub-

collector, Sonepur(Opposite Party No.3) impleading the

CDPO, Tarbha and the petitioner as her opponents.

As per final order dated 11.04.2025(Annexure-7)

passed in that Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025, the

Sub-collector, Sonepur(Opposite Party No.3) allowed that

Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025 of the Opposite

Party No.2 and directed to the CDPO, Tarbha(Opposite

Party No.1) to cancel the engagement of the petitioner and

to issue a fresh engagement order in favour of the Opposite

Party No.2 as the Anganwadi Helper of that Sagarpalli

Anganwadi Centre immediately.

3. On the basis of the order dated 11.04.2025(Annexure-

7) passed in Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025, the

CDPO, Tarbha(Opposite Party No.1) issued a letter No.882

dated 08.05.2025 vide Annexure-11 to the petitioner

disengaging her from the Anganwadi Helper of Sagarpalli

Anganwadi Centre.

4. To which, the petitioner challenged by filing

Anganwadi Helper 2nd Appeal No.4 of 2025 before the

Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur(Opposite Party

No.4) being the appellant against the Opposite Party No.2

and CDPO, Tarbha(Opposite Party No.1) arraying them as

respondents.

5. As per the final order dated 31.10.2025(Annexure-10)

passed in Anganwadi Helper 2nd Appeal No.4 of 2025, the

Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur(Opposite Party

No.4) dismissed that Anganwadi Helper 2nd Appeal No.4 of

2025 of the petitioner.

For which, the petitioner challenged both the above

impugned orders vide Annexures-7 and 10 passed by the

Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 as well as to the letter of

disengagement of the petitioner vide Annexure-11 issued by

the Opposite Party No.1 by filing this writ petition under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

being the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for

quashing the above Anenxures-7, 10 and 11 respectively on

the ground that, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025

passed in Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025 by the

Sub-collector, Subarnapur(Opposite Party No.3) vide

Annexure-7 was in gross violation of the principles of

natural justice without giving adequate opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner along with other grounds.

6. To which, the Opposite Party No.2 objected stating

that, there was no violation of the principles of natural

justice in passing the impugned order dated 11.04.2025

vide Annexure.7 in Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025

by the Opposite Party No.3, because, the learned counsel

for the petitioner had participated in the hearing of that

appeal before Opposite Party No.3 and there is no illegality

in any of the impugned orders passed by the Opposite Party

Nos.3 and 4 vide Annexures-7 and 10, for which, the writ

petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State(Opposite

Party Nos.1, 3 and 4) and the learned counsel for the

Opposite Party No.2.

8. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order dated

11.04.2025(Annexure-7) in Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8

of 2025 has been passed by the Sub-collector,

Sonepur(Opposite Party No.3) in violation of the principles

of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of being

heard was given by the Opposite Party No.3 to the appellant

thereof(petitioner in this writ petition) for hearing of that

Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025.

9. In order to ascertain the correctness of the aforesaid

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e.,

whether adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the

petitioner at the time of hearing of Anganwadi Helper

Appeal Case No.8 of 2025 before the Opposite Party No.3 or

not,

I thought it proper to place it on record to some

portions of the impugned order vide Annexure-7 relating to

the same and the said order is as follows:-

Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025

(i) This case is put up today for hearing.

(ii) The appellant, respondent and CDPO, Tarbha are present and submitted their Hazira, which forms a part of this case record.

Heard them.

The learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted a time petition and prayed for adjournment, as he is not ready for hearing due to illness. Earlier pursuant to his time petition dated 25.03.2025, he was allowed time in the matter. Hence, no further time is allowed.

The CDPO, Tarabha has submitted written statement regarding engagement to the petitioner-Soudamini Nag as Anganwadi Helper.

Perused the same.

Gone through the documents produced during enquiry.

This appeal emanate from the Order No.473 dated 05.03.2025 of CDPO, Tarbha in connection with engagement of Soudamini Nag as Anganwadi Helper in Sagarpalli Anganwadi Centre.


Learned     Advocate     appearing   for   the   appellant
submitted that,

xx           xx           xx         xx            xx

In counter to the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that, the appellant

has managed to obtain residence certificate by giving false information.

xx xx xx xx xx

The Respondent No.2, i.e., CDPO, Tarbha submitted that,

xx xx xx xx xx

10. The above reflections made in the impugned order

dated 11.04.2025(Annexure-7) passed in Anganwadi Helper

Appeal No.8 of 2025 by the Sub-collector, Sonepur(Opposite

Party No.3) is going to show that, the learned counsel for

the petitioner(appellant in Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of

2025) was not ready for hearing of the said Anganwadi

Appeal vide Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025 on

behalf of the petitioner/appellant on the ground of his

personal illness, for which, he had sought for an

adjournment for hearing of the said appeal, but, to which,

the Opposite Party No.3 did not allow, for which, the

learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant was compelled

to participate in the hearing of that appeal in spite of his

illness without being ready properly for hearing of the same,

which is ultimately going to show that, the petitioner has

not gotten adequate opportunity in participating in the

hearing of her appeal vide Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of

2025, as her Advocate was suffering from illness and on the

ground of his illness, he had sought for an adjournment of

hearing, as he was not ready for hearing, but, to which, the

Opposite Party No.3 did not allow.

11. So, from the above reflections made in the impugned

order dated 11.04.2025(Annexure-7) passed by the

Opposite Party No.3, it is forthcoming that, the said

impugned order vide Annexure-7 has been passed by the

Opposite Party No.3 without providing adequate

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/appellant, as

on the date of hearing of the said appeal before the Opposite

Party No.3, the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner

was suffering from illness and due to his illness, he was not

ready for hearing, for which, the Opposite Party No.3 should

have allowed time to the learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner for participating in the hearing of that

appeal on the next date after being recovered from his

illness and after being prepared fully for hearing.

For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated

11.04.2025(Annexure-7) has been passed by the Opposite

Party No.3 in violation of the principles of natural justice.

12. When, it is held that, the impugned order dated

11.04.2025(Annexure-7) has been passed by the Opposite

Party No.3 in violation of the principles of natural justice,

then, as per law, the said impugned order dated

11.04.2025(Annexure-7) passed in Anganwadi Helper

Appeal No.8 of 2025 by the Opposite Party No.3 is liable to

be quashed.

The conclusion drawn above findings support of the

following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Atma Ram and others vrs.

State of Rajasthan : reported in AIR 2019 SC-1961 that,

The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary.

(ii) In a case between A.R. Antulay vrs. R.S. Nayak and another : reported in 1988(2) SCC-602 (Para-55) (Seven Judges Bench) that,

Violation of principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity.

(iii) In a case between Dattu Namdev Thakur vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in 2012 SCW-203 that,

When, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed.

13. When, it is held above that, the initial order dated

11.04.2025(Annexure-7) passed in Anganwadi Helper

Appeal No.8 of 2025 by the Opposite Party No.3 is liable to

be quashed, then as per law, the subsequent orders vide

Annexures-11 and 10 on the basis of the initial order vide

Annexure-7 are also liable to be quashed automatically.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already

been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions of the

Apex Court :-

(i) In a case between State of Punjab vrs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others : reported in (2011) 14 SCC-770 that,

When, it is held that, the initial order is not in consonance with law, then, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall throw for the reasons that, illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact of situation, the legal maxim i.e., "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that,

foundation being removed, structure/work falls shall apply.

(ii) In a case between Badrinath vrs. State of Tamilnadu : reported (2000) 8 SCC-395 that,

Once, the basis of a proceeding is gone, then consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.

State of Kerala vrs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam and another : reported in (2001) 10 SCC- 191 that,

Setting aside of main order--Effect of, consequential orders--Once, the main impugned order is set aside, any consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically become ineffective.(Para No.9)

(iii) In a case between Mangal Prasad Tamoli(Dead) by LRs vrs. Narvadeshwar Mishra(Dead) by LRs :

reported (2005) 3 SCC-422 that,

If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then, further proceedings consequent thereto would be non- est and have to be necessarily set aside.(Para No.15)

(iv) In a case between Upen Chandra Gogoi vrs.

State of Assam and others : reported (1998) 3 SCC- 381 that,

A right in law exists, only when it has a lawful origin.

14. When, it is held above that, the impugned orders vide

Annexures-7, 10 and 11 passed/issued by the Opposite

Party Nos.3, 1 and 4 are liable to be quashed, then at this

juncture, there is no other alternative for this Court, but, to

remit back the Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025 to

the Opposite Party No.3 for deciding the same afresh as per

law, after setting aside the Annexures-7, 11 and 10

passed/issued by the Opposite Party Nos.3, 1 and 4.

15. The conclusion drawn above relating to the remand of

Anganwadi Helper Appeal No.8 of 2025 to the Sub-collector,

Sonepur(Opposite Party No.3) for its fresh decision/

adjudication finds support from the ratio of the following

decision:-

In a case between Durgawati Singh and others vrs. Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Lucknow and others decided in Special Appeal No.497 of 2021(Allahabad) that,

Whenever an order it struck down as invalid being in violation of the principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open.

16. As per discussions and observations made above,

there is some merit in this writ petition filed by the

petitioner for making interference with the impugned orders

vide Annexures-7, 11 and 10 respectively passed/issued by

the Opposite Party Nos.3, 1 and 4 through this writ petition

filed by the petitioner.

Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is to

be allowed in part.

17. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed in part.

The impugned orders vide Annexures-7, 11 and 10

passed/issued by the Opposite Party Nos.3, 1 and 4