Dismissed

Sarita Mohanty v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC13 Nov 2018WP(C)/10203/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's appeal against the selection of Opposite Party No. 5 as an Anganwadi worker. The Court upheld the selection, ruling that the applicant qualified under government guidelines allowing preferential treatment for prior Balwadi teacher experience, even with lower academic marks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it merits no consideration due to the absence of illegality in the selection process.

Sarita Mohanty Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10203 of 2012

¶2

13.11.2018 Due to cease work call given by Orissa High Court Bar Association, none appears for the parties.

¶3

Perused the record.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 27.03.2012 in Annexure-8 passed by the ADM, Puri in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.16 of 2011 and further seeks for direction that her candidature should be considered for the post of Anganwadi worker in Kartikapara anganwadi centre under Jasuapur G.P. of Puri as per the select list under Annexure-4 in Pipili Block under ICDS Project, Pipili.

¶5

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that pursuant to notification dated 21.12.2009 of the CDPO, Pipili invited applications from the local area of the centre to fill up the post of anganwadi worker in respect of Addl. Centre, Kartikapada with specification that the application with testimonials be filed on 06.01.2010 by 4.00 P.M. Six applications including the petitioner and opposite party no.5 have filed application for the said post. The CDPO invited public objection as to caste, resident and educational qualification of the applicants vide notification dated 14.01.2010. The experience certificate indicating the opposite party no.5 to have worked as a teacher in Balwadi Project at village Kartikapada and as a volunteer-cum-village animator-motivator for self help group issued by the NGOs, namely, Social Welfare Research Centre on 20.06.2009. No objection was filed by the petitioner or any other person. It is contended that there was no Balwadi centre nor the opposite party no.5 was working as Balwadi teacher in Kartikapada centre and selection of opposite party

¶6

¶7

no.5 has been objected on this ground. Since no engagement order has been issued, opposite party no.5 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10776 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court directing that opposite party no.5, who was working as a teacher from 02.03.2002 to 20.04.2007, to accept the experience certificate produced by opposite party no.5 as reflected in the letter dated 15.03.2010. In compliance of the same, taking into consideration the experience gained by opposite party no.5, she was selected for engagement as anganwadi worker even though the petitioner has secured higher percentage of marks that that of opposite party no.5. Against such selection of opposite party no.5, the petitioner preferred an anganwadi appeal bearing Anganwadi Appeal No.16 of 2011 before the ADM, Puri, who confirmed the selection of opposite party no.5 taking into consideration her experience as a teacher in Balwadi centre and rejected the appeal. Hence this application.

¶8

Pursuant to notice dated 19.06.2012, opposite partyno.4 file counter affidavit stating inter alia that admittedly opposite partyno.5 submitted her application for engagement as anganwadi worker on 06.01.2010 within due time and the CDPO, Pipili signed her application on the date of verification on 11.01.2010 and also the application submitted by the petitioner. Opposite party no.5 submitted her experience certificate rendering service in Balwadi centre and also certain other NGOs in which she gained experience. But the same has not taken into consideration and order of engagement has not been issued in her favour. Therefore, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10776 of 2010 which was disposed of directing the CDPO, Pipili to take into consideration the experience certificate submitted by her even though she

¶9

¶10

secured less percentage of marks and was selected as anganwadi worker in respect of the centre in question. As per the government guidelines dated 02.05.2007, paragraph-5 of which provides that consequent upon closure of Balwadi centres in ICDS area the Balwadi workers having requisite qualification as provided under paragraph-3 shall be selected as anganwadi workers, if any are found otherwise suitable and have worked for more than five years. Opposite party no.5 having satisfied such requirement, she has been selected and thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority.

¶11

Considering the pleadings available on record, it appears that if opposite party no.5 had gained the experience as Balwadi teacher working in Balwadi centre for a period of five years w.e.f. 02.03.2002 to 20.04.2007 and taking into consideration such experience as per paragraph-5 of the government guidelines, she has been selected, the petitioner cannot have any grievance for that reason. Even though she secured higher percentage of marks taking into consideration her academic achievements, Balwadi workers having been given preferential treatment in the certificate issued by the government, opposite party no.5 may have secured less percentage of marks, she has been gained experience as Balwadi teacher and in view of such certificate she has been selected.

¶12

In view of such position, the selection of opposite party no.5 cannot be faulted with. As such, to controvert the contention raised by opposite party no.4, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner till today though the same has been received on 29.08.2012 and in the meantime, six years have been passed.

¶13

In view of the above, this Court does not find any

¶14

¶15

illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by the ADM, Puri. The writ petition writ petition merits no consideration and thus the same is hereby dismissed.

¶16

Ashok

¶17

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Sarita Mohanty v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Mohanty v. State and Ors.

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

Monalisha Sarangi Vs State of Orissa

Nibedita Pradhan Vs State and Ors.

Dhanurjaya Padal Vs State and Ors.

Bhagirathi Nayak Vs State

Debasis R.Mohapatro Vs CHAIRMAN,OJEE,2013

Kamal Kanta Swain Vs CHAIRMAN,OJEE,2013