B.R. Sarangi, J. -
(1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector, Chatrapur in Misc. Appeal No.19/2009 at Annexure-9, by which her engagement as anganwadi worker of Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre has been set aside and direction has been given to the CDPO to disengage her forthwith and to place the matter before the selection Committee to examine the claim of petitioner vis -vis opposite party no.5 as per the prevailing guidelines and finalize the selection of anganwadi worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre in question within a period of one month.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Chatrapur issued an advertisement on 01.06.2009 in Annexure-1 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection of Anganwadi Workers in respect of various Anganwadi Centres of Chatrapur NAC, which includes Station Road Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre. As per such advertisement, the applicant must be a social worker residing within the centre area for more than six months and, as such, she should produce the residential certificate from the local Tahasildar issued within six months. The minimum qualification prescribes in the said advertisement is matriculation and age should be within 18 to 42 years as of 01.01.2009. If any candidate of the Centre area is not made available, then the candidate from nearby area should be given opportunity. The applications were to reach between 01.06.2009 and 15.06.2009. As such, the candidates were to remain present on 16.06.2009 for verification of documents and objection if any, should be filed between 16.06.2009 and 23.06.2009. In the event, any application received beyond the time stipulated, the same was not to be accepted.
2.1 Pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1, the petitioner, along with four others, applied for. They were called for verification of documents on 17.06.2009 at 11.00 am. Consequentially, a list of the candidates, who had applied for engagement of anganwadi worker in respect of Station Road Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre, was prepared vide Annexure-3, wherein the name of the petitioner, along with opposite party no.5, was indicated. The petitioner having been selected, engagement order was issued in her favour on 10.08.2009 vide Annexure-4, and she joined on 11.08.2009. The selection and engagement of the petitioner was challenged by opposite party no.5 by filing appeal before the Sub-Collector, Chatrapur, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 19 of 2009, on the ground that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre area, Chatrapur rather she is temporarily residing with one Damayanti Dora of Church Road, Chatrapur, and that she, being below 35 years of age as on 01.01.2009, was not eligible to get extra weightage of 10 % of mark, and that, she was not a Balwadi worker at Railway Colony center area, therefore, her selection to the post of anganwadi worker pursuant to advertisement was illegal.
2.2 On being noticed in appeal, the petitioner refuted the contention raised by opposite partyno.5 and contended that she is a bona fide resident of Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre area, Chatrapur as the Tahasildar, Chatrapur issued resident certificate to her basing on the ROR in respect of Khata No. 93/185, which stands recorded in the name of the mother-in-law of the petitioner, and also produced the electricity and holding tax payment receipts of NAC Chatrapur. It was further stated that at the time of selection no objection was raised relating to her residence/nativity within the stipulated period, thereby, the claim of the opposite party no.5 cannot have any justification. The Sub-collector, after hearing the opposite party no.5 and the petitioner, came to a conclusion that since the petitioner offered her candidature for Narasinghpur Anganwadi Centre, by virtue of resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, and her name was published in the merit list prepared by the selection committee, but not selected as per the guideline, she cannot be a valid candidate for another centre, i.e. Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre, Chatrapur. Therefore, her candidature for the post of Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre should have been rejected by the selection committee, instead of selecting her for the post by so holding the selection of the petitioner as anganwadi worker was set aside and the CDPO was directed to disengage her forthwith and place the matter before the selection committee for examining the claim of the opposite party no.5 as per the prevailing guideline and finalize the selection of anganwadi worker in respect of the centre within a period of one month. Hence this application
2. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to advertisement issued in Annexure-1, the petitioner submitted her application along with others and after due scrutiny if she was selected and engaged as anganwadi worker and no objection was raised with regard to her resident certificate at the time of scrutiny of documents, such ground should not have been taken into consideration in appeal for debarring the petitioner to continue as anganwadi worker by disengaging her from the said post. It is further contended that the residence certificate issued by the competent authority has not been challenged and cancelled. Thereby, the engagement of the petitioner, pursuant to such certificate, cannot be found fault with and at no stretch of imagination it can be said that the engagement of the petitioner is bad in law, rather it is well within the guideline issued by the State Government and within the competency of the authorities, who issued such engagement order. Accordingly, she seeks for quashing of the order impugned in Annexure-9 and to allow the petitioner to continue as before as anganwadi worker. To substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgment of this High court in Babita Pattanayak v. State of Orissa and others, 2014 1 ORISSALR 427.
(3.) Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that if the petitioner does not belong to the centre area, namely, Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre, even if she has been selected and engaged by mistake, that itself cannot give a right to continue in the post, if the same has been detected subsequently by the authority, the same can be rectified. It is further contended that the petitioner had offered her candidature for Narasinghpur Anganwadi Centre, by virtue of the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, and her name was published in the draft list prepared by the selection committee, but merely because she could not come out successful in respect of the said centre as per the guideline, she cannot be considered to be a valid candidate for another centre, namely, Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre. He further contended that since the error was committed by the selection committee, the same has been rectified subsequently. Therefore, the order impugned is wholly and fully justified, which need not be interfered with at this stage.;