Single judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of candidature for an Anganwadi worker. The court held there was no illegality in the ADM's order holding that the petitioner resided outside the eligibility area, despite higher marks.
Writ petition dismissed being devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.12373 of 2012
3.9.2015 Heard.
The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 25.05.2012 passed i
n Anganwadi Appeal No. 45 of 2010 by which the decision of the Selection Committee has been up
held and the appeal has been dismissed.
Case of the petitioner is that even though she is residing in Baghandi-Kha Anganwadi c
entre area but her case has not been considered while she has secured higher marks than the op
posite party no.4. Report of the Revenue Inspector has not been accepted by the appellate auth
ority without giving any reason.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State although has been directed to file co
unter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed but orally he has argued and defended
the order passed by the ADM, Subarnapur submitting that the petitioner since not residing in t
he area where the centre is situated i.e., Baghandi-Kha rather she is residing in house No.107
situates in centre area Ka of village Baghandi hence she is not eligible as per the guideline
dated 02.05.2007 and accordingly the Selection Committee has rejected the candidature of the
petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality in the decision of the Selection Committee or in the
order passed by the ADM.
Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.
The village Baghandi is having two Anganwadi centers in the name of Baghandi-Ka and Ba
ghandi-Kha and the present advertisement relates to Baghandi- Kha. As
per the guideline dated 02.05.2007, candidature of a candidate shall be considered if she is r
esiding where the centre is situated.
The petitioner is residing in the house No.107 which is situated in the area of Baghan
di-Ka which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The area of Baghandi-Kha of village Baghandi starts from house No.155 to 250 i.e., fro
m house of Rana Juadi to Sana Juadi. The Selection Committee after going through the various d
ocuments has rejected candidature of the petitioner since the house of the petitioner is situa
ted in the area Ka of village Baghandi bearing house No.107. Hence the candidature of the peti
tioner has been rejected.
The ADM, Subarnapur after taking into consideration all aspect of the matter has come
to finding that the petitioner since was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria hence the Sel
ection Committee has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner.
The ADM has not accepted report of the R.I. which shows that the distance of the house
of the petitioner and Astami Nag which is nearer to the present Anganwadi centre Kha than the
resident of the opposite party no.4. But only on the ground of distance, the candidature of t
he petitioner cannot be accepted because the eligibility condition prescribed in the guideline
is that the candidate must be resident of the area where the centre is situated and this elig
ibility condition has got nothing to do with distance because the condition provided in the g
uideline is that a candidate must be resident of the area where the
center is situated. Accordingly, report of R.I. has been rejected and also not considered by t
he ADM.
From perusal of the order passed by the ADM, Subarnapur, I find no irregularity in the
order of the ADM since he has passed the order after taking into consideration all aspects of
the matter specially the fact that the petitioner is not residing in village Baghandi-Kha cen
tre area rather she is residing in village Baghandi-Ka centre area which has also not been dis
puted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ADM.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
S. N. Prasad, J.
4
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the order of the appellate authority rejecting the petitioner's candidature for an Anganwadi centre due to lack of residence in the specific centre area.
Petitioner
State of Orissa through ADM, Subarnapur
S. N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court