BIDYUT MANJARI SETHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-24
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 14,2020

Bidyut Manjari Sethi Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.R. Sarangi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash order dated 04.06.2016 at Annexure-15 passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in AWW Misc. Appeal Case No. 88/2010 and declare that she is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, as she belonged to ward no. 15 and had secured highest marks, with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Project, Kanas issued an advertisement on 26.03.2010 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of the post of Anganwadi Worker in additional Anganwadi Centre, namely, Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre of ward no. 15 comprising from house of Antaryami Parida to house of Bhagirathi Parida, along with other Anganwadi Centers of Badal Grama Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, for Alipada-2 Anganwadi Center, the petitioner and opposite party no.7- Sima Sahoo applied. The list of eligible candidates was published on 16.04.2010 in Annexure-2 inviting objections. The list so prepared was made final, as no objection was received. Pursuant to such eligibility list prepared by the authority in Annexure-2 dated 16.04.2010, opposite party no.7 was selected. 2.1 Aggrieved by the above selection, the petitioner preferred AWW Misc. Appeal Case No. 88/2010 before the Sub-Collector, Puri. During its pendency, alleging inaction of the authority in disposal of the said appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 8270 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2010 directing the SubCollector, Puri to decide the grievance of the petitioner on merit. In pursuance thereof, the Sub-Collector rejected AWW Misc. Appeal No. 88 of 2010, vide order dated 16.09.2014, on the basis of the report of the Child Development Project Officer dated 26.07.2013 and joint report dated 01.03.2014 of the Tahasildar, Kanas and BDO, Kanas, by holding that the residence of the petitioner does not come under the operational area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre. Consequentially, engagement order was issued in favour of opposite party no.7 on 15.10.2014. 2.2 Challenging order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in Annexure-5, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 19469 of 2014 and this Court, vide order dated 02.11.2015, by holding that though in the joint enquiry report (as annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party-State) reference has been made regarding residential status of the petitioner, but no reference has been made regarding residential status of opposite party no.7, remitted back the matter to opposite party no.4-Sub-Collector, Puri to pass fresh order by adjudicating the issue relating to the residential status of the petitioner vis- -vis opposite party no.7 by calling for a fresh report from the District Social Welfare, Puri, who would submit the same after proper verification of their residential status and, if required, by conducting spot verification, and to complete the entire exercise within six weeks. On being called upon, the District Social Welfare, Puri submitted a report stating that neither the house of the petitioner nor opposite party no.7 is coming under the jurisdiction of service area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, i.e. Ward No. 15, as per the notification for engagement of Anganwadi Worker and service area approved in BLCC meeting held on 31.12.2009. On the basis of such report, the order impugned was passed that the claim of the petitioner is not taken into consideration and the same is rejected as she does not come under Anganwadi Centre service area of ward no. 15 as per notification, and that the engagement order issued in favour of opposite party no.7 is set aside as she does not come under the service area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, and accordingly direction was issued to CDPO, Kanas to issue disengagement order in favour of opposite partyno.7 and report compliance. Hence this application.
(3.) Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner belonged to ward no. 15 of Alipada village and her serial number is 255 and house number is 79, whereas opposite party no.7 married to one Prasanta Kumar Balilyar Singh, who belonged to ward no. 14 having house no. 24 and serial no. 127. Since petitioner belonged to ward no. 15, she is eligible to be considered for Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, as because her house exists within the operational area. He further contended that when the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the selection of opposite party no.7 in AWW Misc. Appeal No. 88 of 2010 before the Sub-Collector, Puri, the CDPO submitted a report on 26.07.2013, enclosing the joint enquiry report prepared by the Tahasildar, Kanas and BDO, Kanas on 01.03.2014, stating therein that opposite party no.7 belonged to the service area but the petitioner does not, and that though the petitioner secured highest mark than opposite party no.7, her candidature was rejected due to the fact that she is an outsider, and that since opposite party no.7 is the only candidate to be selected for the Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, she was selected by the authority. Such report is contrary to the advertisement issued by the CDPO, which indicates that Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre is in ward no. 15, which comprises from the house of Antaryami Parida to that of Bhagirathi Parida. Therefore, on the basis of such report, when the Sub-Collector, Puri decided AWW Misc. Appeal No. 88 of 2010, vide order dated 16.09.2014, the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19469 of 2014, which was disposed of directing the District Social Welfare, Puri to submit a fresh report by causing a spot enquiry relating to residential status of the petitioner vis- -vis opposite party no.7. Accordingly a report was submitted by the District Social Welfare, Puri stating that house of the petitioner does not come under service area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre and on the other hand the house of opposite party no.7 comes under Ward No. 14. Hence, the houses of both the candidates are not coming under the jurisdiction of service area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre i.e. ward no. 15 as per the notification for engagement of Anganwadi Worker. It is contended that such report of the District Welfare Officer is contrary to the advertisement. On spot verification it is found that as per AWW engagement notification and BLCC proceedings the service area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre comprises from "House of Antaryami Parida to house of Bhagirathi Parida of Ward No. 15", but it is not categorically mentioned with regard to father's name of the candidates. As per the BLCC proceeding and notification for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, Sri Antaryami Parida, S/o Hata Parida and Bhagirathi Parida, S/o Antaryami Parida belonged to one family of ward no. 15, and another Bhagirathi Parida, S/o- Nimai Parida of village Alipada belonged to ward no. 14. Thereby, in respect of both the applicants, the finding of the SubCollector in the impugned order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.