Allowed

Sabita Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Aug 2015WP(C)/10602/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the inclusion of an ineligible candidate based on age in the Anganwadi Worker selection list. The court quashed the order allowing the ineligible candidate's consideration and directed the authority to engage the petitioner, the next eligible candidate. The principle of rounding off age was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.4.2015 of the A.D.M., Balasore quashed and engagement of opposite party no.6 quashed; Competent authority directed to issue appropriate order regarding engagement of the petitioner as A

25.8.2015 Petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Balasore by which opposite party no.6 has been allowed to appear for consideration of her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Dhadasahi Ang anwadi Centre of NAC Nilgiri even though she had not attained age of 18 years as on 1.1.2011 a s required in the advertisement as per clause no.2.

Issue has been raised by the petitioner that the authority is supposed to follow the terms and conditions of the advertisement and when in clause no.2 of the advert isement it has been required inviting applications from the candidates who are not less than 1 8 years of age and not more than 42 years of age as on 1.1.2011.

By the impugned order dated 28.4.2015 the A.D.M., Balasore dispos ed of the appeal filed by the opposite party no.6 remanded the matter to the Sub-Collector, Ni lgiri-cum-Chairman Selection Committee of Anganwadi worker with a direction to allow the oppos ite party no.6 to take part in the process of selection and take decision for selection of Ang anwadi Worker as per the order of the this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.2411 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No.7114 of 2015 by the end of April,2015.

It has been contended that the selection committee should have first a ssess the eligibility as required under the advertisement/guideline then only question of maki ng comparative assessment of the candidature will arise but here in this case although the opp osite party no.6 was not eligible on account of having less than 18 years of age was entertain ed her candidature for engagement as Anganwadi Worker which is absolutely incorrect and improp er decision.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 has tried to justify the order passed by the A.D.M. by stating that attainment of 18 years means just after completion of 17 years and entered the age of 18 years, hence he has pointed out that the guideline is al so not very specific and as such the selection committee after taking into consideration of th is matter has allowed candidature of the opposite party no.6 since opposite party no.6 was abo ut to complete 18 years, hence she was rightly been permitted to be considered for her candida ture.

Sole dispute raised by the petitioner in this case is as to whether op posite party no.6 who has not attained age of 18 years as required in the advertisement can be said to be eligible candidate for consideration and engagement as Anganwadi worker.

To determine the issue it is relevant to go through clause no.2 of the advertisement which prescribed that a candidate should attained age of 18 years as on 1.1.201 1. The word attained denotes a person completes 18 years of age. Admittedly, as on 1.1.2011 t he opposite party no.6 had not attained 18 years of age 17 years 9 months and 24 days. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.6 submitted that due to some differences the opposite party no.6 has rightly been considered but this argument of the lear ned counsel for the opposite party no.6 cannot be accepted on the following reasons. (i) Once any terms and conditions is being issued incorporated in the advertisement the author ity is supposed to follow in its strict sense. (ii) As per the advertisement requirement of minimum age was 18 years as on 1.1.20111 which su ggests requirement for eligibility on account of age was 18 years. (iii) If the opposite party no.6 has been given privilege of giving relaxation by rounding of the age, it would hit principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also Article 1 6 because if it would have been described in the advertisement, more candidates having under t he same age as that of opposite party no.6 would have applied, by giving relaxation, the autho rities have acted arbitrarily.

It is settled that rounding off principle is not applicable in the cas e of marks or in the case of age. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into considera tion by the A.D.M., Balasore and the appeal preferred by the opposite party no.6 has been allo wed.

In view of the reasons mentioned above, decision dated 28.4.2015 of th e A.D.M.,Balasore cannot be said to be justified rather decision of the selection committee sa id to be legal and in consonance with the settled principles of law.

Accordingly, order dated 28.4.2015 passed by the A.D.M.,Balasore is qu ashed with a direction to the competent authority to proceed with the selection process. Engag ement of opposite party no.6 is hereby quashed.

e opposite party no.6 would not have been considered and her candidature would have been rejec ted at the threshold, petitioner would have been placed at the top of the list and she would h ave been selected.

I find force on the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petit ioner because direction having been issued by the A.D.M. to the selection committee to conside r candidature of the opposite party no.6 and she has been shown to have secured higher marks a nd selected but if candidature of the opposite party no.6 would have been rejected since she h ad not attained age of 18 years as required in the advertisement, there would be no question o f awarding marks because question of awarding any marks will arise only if a candidate is foun d to be eligible.

In view thereof, the petitioner will be said to be higher scorer of ma rks as per the comparative statement of marks which has been brought on record and hence the c ompetent authority is directed to issue appropriate order regarding engagement of the petition er as Anganwadi Worker in Dhadasahi Anganwadi Centre of NAC Nilgiri within a period of four we eks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

Sabita Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabita Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapilendra Sagria Vs State of Orissa

Madhuchhanda Bhagat Vs State

Baneswar Bhumji Vs State

Parbati Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sahadev Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Manorama Sahoo Vs Collector,Cuttack