Quashed

Manorama Sahoo v. Collector,Cuttack

Orissa HC25 Aug 2015WP(C)/22582/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the Collector's decision to conduct a fresh selection for an Anganwadi Worker post, holding it illegal. Relying on a 2007 guideline mandating consideration of village candidates when no local ones apply, the Court directed the Collector to complete the selection within four weeks, considering the petitioner's eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 26.10.2012 quashed. Collector directed to complete selection within four weeks of receiving the order, considering petitioner's eligibility.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the communication of the Distric t Social Welfare Officer, Cuttack addressed to the petitioner dated 26.10.2012 intimating the petitioner the decision of the Collector, Cuttack going for fresh selection of Anganwadi Worke r in respect of Purunapani (Adibasi Sahi) Anganwadi centre rejecting representation of the pet itioner dated 18.12.2010.

Case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Purunapani village and made application in pursuance to the notice dated 19.11.2010 for being considered as Anganwadi Worker for Purun apani (Adibasi Sahi) Anganwadi centre. None other than the petitioner has applied and the peti tioner in all respect being eligible instead of consideration of her candidature, has not been considered hence the petitioner was forced to file a writ petition being in W.P.(C) No.1869 o f 2011 and in terms thereafter the petitioner has filed representation on 18.12.2010 ventilati ng her grievance but rejected with the decision of the Collector to go for fresh selection vid e communication dated 26.10.2012 (impugned).

Further case of the petitioner is that prior to the said advertisement one earlier adv ertisement was issued but none made application from the area where the centre is situated. It has been contended that in the guideline dated 02.05.2007, provision has been made that in case of non-availability of a candidate residing in the area where the centre is situa ted, the candidature of such candidate who

are residing in the village where the centre is situated will be considered. But the authoriti es have not followed the said condition of the guideline and the Collector while rejecting rep resentation has also not appreciated that aspect of the matter.

It has further been contended that the Sub-Collector has also communicated vide commun ication dated 13.09.2012 (Annexure-7) addressed to the D.S.W.O., Cuttack by conducting an enqu iry stating therein that the petitioner is not an inhabitant of Purunapani (Adibasi Sahi) rath er she resides in Purunapani Revenue village. Her house is hardly 400 meters from the Purunapa ni (Adibasi Sahi) Mini Anganwadi centre area.

From the report it would be evident that the villagers of Purunapani (Adibasi Sahi) ha d found that there is no qualified persons applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Puruna pani (Adibasi Sahi) Anganwadi centre and accordingly recommendation has been made for issuance of fresh notification inviting fresh applications resulting into issuance of fresh advertisem ent as per the direction communicated to the petitioner on 26.10.2012.

Case of the petitioner is that when it has been provided in the guideline that in case of non-availability of the candidate from the Anganwadi centre area, the candidature of such candidate who are residing in the village concerned shall be taken into consideration but the authorities are not obeying the same and even the Collector has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and has taken decision to go for fresh selection.

The opposite parties has filed counter affidavit referring to the same, learned counse l for the State has submitted that since the petitioner is not residing in the centre area hen ce the decision has been taken to go for fresh selection.

Grievance of the petitioner is against issuance of fresh selection process and non-con sideration of her candidature. The fact which has been urged by the learned counsel for the pe titioner regarding issuance of advertisement and no application has been received from the can didates residing in the centre area has not been disputed.

It has also not been disputed that since the year 2010 Anganwadi centre is lying vacan t for want of Anganwadi Worker. Reference of the guideline dated 02.05.2007 needs to be made w hich provides that in case of non-availability of the candidature from the centre area the can didature of the candidate residing in the village will have to be taken into consideration. It is admitted position in this case that no candidate having there resident in the ce ntre area is making application for last two advertisements resulting into non-functioning of the centre due to want of Anganwadi Worker which ultimately resulted into depriving the benefi ciaries who are supposed to get benefit from functioning of the Anganwadi centre. Keeping this fact in mind, the authorities have taken

It is not disputed that the petitioner is residing in Purunapani village and a sole ca ndidate and it is also not in dispute that apart from the petitioner no other candidates have made applications either from the centre area or from the village.

The petitioner has represented her case before the Collector in terms of the order pas sed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1869 of 2011 but the Collector without appreciating this aspec t of the matter has communicated the petitioner rejecting representation and taken decision to go for fresh selection.

From the situation which is emerging by going through the averments and record of the case it cannot be taken as guarantee that in fresh selection process a candidate belonging to the centre area will be an applicant because for last two occasions no candidate from centre a rea were making applications.

Issuance of fresh notice can be said to be justified only when claim of the petitioner was said to be not eligible or it was questioned but that is not the fact here. Since guideli ne provides in case of non-availability of the

candidature from the centre area in question, candidature of the candidate of same village is to be taken into consideration. So instead of going for fresh selection, the authorities ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioner on her own merit subject to fulfillment by the petitioner as per the guideline in operation. But instead of doing so, fresh selection has been decided to be initiated which cannot be said to be justified because the centre in qu estion is lying vacant since 2010.

In view thereof, decision taken by the Collector for going for fresh selection is here by held to be unjustified and illegal and accordingly the order dated 26.10.2012 is quashed. In the result, the Collector, Cuttack is directed to look into the matter so that sele ction shall be completed without any unnecessary delay, considering the fact that post of Anga nwadi Worker is lying vacant since long hence it would be in the ends of beneficiaries to dire ct the authorities to conclude the selection process within period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and if the petitioner will find to be eligible as per the gu ideline as she claims appropriate decision in accordance with law shall be taken within the pe riod aforesaid.

Manorama Sahoo v. Collector,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorama Sahoo v. Collector,Cuttack

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

Sabita Patra Vs State of Odisha