Dismissed

Pragati Mandal v. Addl.Dist.Magistrate

Orissa HC18 Dec 2019WP(C)/17113/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order that remanded an anganwadi worker selection to the Sub-Collector due to conflicting records regarding the service area. Finding no illegality in the appellate authority's decision, the Court upheld the remand order and directed parties to cooperate in verifying the area and appointing a genuine candidate. The petition was disposed

What the court decided

AI extract

Pragati Mandal Vs Addl.Dist.Magistrate — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

WPC No. 17113 of 2013

¶2

18.12.2019 Heard Mr. G.R. Sahoo on behalf of Mr. B. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel; and Mr. P.K. Jena on behalf of Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned, learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.41 of 2011 and issue direction to the opposite parties to allow her to continue as anganwadi worker in respect of Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre.

¶4

The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that CDPO, Sadar Balasore issued notification dated 20.11.2009 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for anganwadi workers in various centres. So far as Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre is concerned, it has been mentioned in the said notification that Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre has been constituted taking into entire houses of Minigapahi only. Pursuant thereto, petitioner and opposite party no.4 applied for and consequentially the petitioner was selected and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre. Challenging her selection, opposite party no.4 preferred Anganwadi Appeal Case No.41 of 2011 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore, who in turn disposed of the same by remitting the matter to the Sub-Collector, Balasore-cum-Chairman, Selection

¶5

¶6

Committee with a direction to relook the record/documents afresh along with the enquiry report of Revenue Officer; Sub-Collector’s office and take necessary steps in the light of prevailing Government guidelines for selection of anganwadi worker.

¶7

Mr. G.R. Sahoo on behalf of Mr. B. Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner belonged to the anganwadi centre area and by following due procedure of selection, she was selected and when the question of engagement came, her selection was challenged by opposite party no.4 and in appeal the appellate authority, without taking into consideration the facts that opposite party no.4 does not belong to anganwadi centre area and for that she was not selected, remanded the matter to the SubCollector, Balasore-cum-Chairman, Selection Committee to relook the same in accordance with law, which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court.

¶8

Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since two contradictory lists were prepared by the CDPO showing service area of Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre and it is not known which is genuine one, the selection of the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to the SubCollector, Balasore-cum-Chairman, Selection Committee to make an enquiry and verify the same and

¶9

¶10

pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the appellate authority in remanding the matter to the Sub-Collector.

¶11

Mr. P.K. Jena appearing on behalf of Mr. P.K. Satpathy, learned, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 contended that since the petitioner got employment on the basis of the fraudulent document and against that order opposite party no.4 preferred appeal, consequentially the order impugned has been passed. Thus, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the appellate authority in remanding the matter to the original authority to make a verification with regard to actual centre area of Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre, so that genuine person can be appointed in the said post.

¶12

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, the facts delineated above are not disputed. The only question is to be considered whether the selection of the petitioner set aside by the appellate authority is justified or not. As it appears, the appellate authority set aside the selection of the petitioner on the ground that there was dispute with regard to anganwadi centre area and, as such, two contradictory lists had been produced before him describing the anganwadi centre area, which itself creates confusion in the minds of the appellate authority. Therefore, he has

¶13

¶14

remitted the matter to the Sub-Collector, Balasorecum-Chairman, Selection Committee with a direction to relook the record/documents afresh along with the enquiry report of Revenue Officer; Sub-Collector’s office and take necessary steps in the light of prevailing Government guidelines for selection of anganwadi worker.

¶15

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the appellate authority while passing the order impugned dated 26.03.2013. Thereby, while confirming the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Balasore, this Court directs both the parties to appear before the Sub-Collector, Balasore-cumChairman, Selection Committee and cooperate with the proceeding, so that the Sub-Collector can act in consonance with the order dated 26.03.2013 to find out the anganwadi centre area of Mirigapahi Anganwadi centre and appoint the genuine candidate as anganwadi worker.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Issue urgent certified copy as per ruels.

¶18

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶19

Ashok

Pragati Mandal v. Addl.Dist.Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pragati Mandal v. Addl.Dist.Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikash Ranjan Debata Vs State and Ors.

Bijay Laxmi Nanda Vs State

Jadunath Panda Vs State

Nrushinga Samantaray Vs State and Ors.

Taruni Patel Vs State and Ors.

Geetanjali Jena Vs State and Ors.