SARASWATI PUHAN Vs. DHENKANAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a candidate for the post of anganwadi helper of Nuathakurpal anganwadi centre under Kaluria Gram Panchayat in the district of Dhenkanal, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 19/5/2011 passed by the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal under Annexure-3, and further seeks direction to the opposite parties to engage her as anganwadi helper in respect of the said anganwadi centre.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the C.D.P.O., Gandia issued an advertisement on 12/5/2010 inviting applications from the intending candidates for engagement of anganwadi helper in respect of Nuathakurpal anganwadi centre, as mahila sabha could not be held on 10/3/2020 at 2.00 P.M. As per eligibility criteria of the said advertisement, a candidate must be a permanent resident of the anganwadi centre area, her age must be within 18 to 42 years and preference would be given to orphan, widow, divorced, separated/deserted woman. Pursuant to such advertisement under Annexure-1, the CDPO received applications from the intending candidates for engagement of anganwadi helper. The petitioner raised objection with regard to candidature of opposite party no.4 contending that opposite party no.4 does not belong to the anganwadi centre area, as she married in village Damodarnali under Beltikiri Gram Panchayat. But her objection was not taken into consideration by the authority and, therefore, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12320 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 14/1/2011 directing the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal to dispose of the objection/appeal after hearing the parties within a period of two months. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the Sub-Collector, vide order dtd. 19/5/2011 under Annexure-3, dismissed the appeal/objection preferred by the petitioner holding that opposite party no.4 being a separated/deserted woman, her engagement as anganwadi helper in the anganwadi centre is justified. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. A.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Sub-Collector, while passing the order impugned in Annexure-3, has not applied its mind with regard to the fact that opposite party no.4 does not belong to the anganwadi centre area. It is contended that opposite party no.4 was otherwise not eligible to be considered for engagement as anganwadi helper, in view of the fact that she filed an order of maintenance granted by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal in Criminal Misc. Case No.53 of 2003 in a proceeding under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., wherein the learned Magistrate, by order dtd. 7/8/2004, directed husband of opposite party no.4, namely, Binay Sahani to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.500.00. Therefore, ipso facto it cannot be construed that she is a separated/deserted woman so as to claim preference over the others including the petitioner. It is further contended that unless opposite party no.4 produces a decree of divorce granted by the competent court, it cannot be construed that she is a deserted/separated woman in order to claim preference over the others in consonance with the guidelines. Thereby, the order so passed by the Sub-Collector, cannot sustain in the eye of law.