Dismissed

Minati Samantaray v. the Collector,Puri

Orissa HC4 Apr 2019WP(C)/22948/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the selection of an Anganwadi Worker allegedly based on a forged disability certificate. The court held the second writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative appeal remedy and res judicata principles arising from non-compliance with previous orders. The application was disposed of without adjudication on disputed fa

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as not maintainable; no adjudication on disputed facts of forged certificate was attempted.

Minati Samantaray Vs the Collector,Puri — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 22948 of 2018

¶2

04 04.04.2019 Heard Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application challenging the selection of opposite party no.6 on the ground that on the basis of the forged disability certificate she has been selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker.

¶4

Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement issued by the CDPO, Kanas, the petitioner along with others have applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Balipada (Jaliapada) under Sahupada Gram Panchayat and by following due procedure of selection, the opposite party no.6 was selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker on the basis of the forged disability certificate produced by her. It is further contended that when such forged certificate was came to notice of the petitioner, she approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 20765 of 2013, which was disposed of on 14.12.2017 directing to comply the direction contained in Annexure-6 by taking appropriate decision by the competent authority. In compliance of the said direction, even though notice was issued to opposite party no.6, she was not present herself for examination with regard to disability certificate issued to her. Therefore, the letter dated 20.08.2018 in Annexure-11 has been issued by the CDPO, Kanas stating inter alia in view of the order of this Court and the order of the Sub-Collector, Puri a further necessary order may kindly be issued if time shall be allowed or orders of termination of opposite party no.6 shall be issued for deliberate avoidance for verification of

¶5

disability certificate pursuant to disability of 98 percentage. Hence the petitioner approached this Court once again by filing this application against the opposite party no.6 to make herself available before the authority concerned in compliance of order in Annexure-11.

¶6

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that as per the guideline issued by the Government against illegal and irregular selection of Anganwadi Worker, appeal lies. Instead of preferring appeal, the petitioner approached this Court earlier, which was disposed of with a direction to opposite party no.6 to present herself before the competent authority, who shall take appropriate decision in the matter. In spite of notice being issued, the opposite party no.6 had not appeared before the authority concerned. In that view of the matter, there may be a violation of the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by this Court. Instead of approaching contempt application, the present application has been filed on the ground that the opposite party no.6 avoiding to appear before the authority concerned for verification of disability certificate issued in her favour, which can be adjudicated in appeal itself. Instead of approaching appellate authority, this application has been filed, which is not maintainable.

¶7

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records since the petitioner has challenged the selection and engagement of opposite party no.6 as Anganwadi Worker, may be on the ground of production of fake disability certificate, that itself is appealable one in view of the guideline issued by the Government. Instead of preferring appeal, the petitioner time and again approached this Court by filing different

¶8

applications compelling the opposite party no.6 to appear before the authority for verification of her disability certificate. If the opposite party no.6 is avoiding the same and due to non-compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner could have approached this Court by filing contempt application, but for the self same reason 2^nd writ application is not maintainable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application as it is barred by res judicata. If there is alternative remedy available for the petitioner to prefer an appeal to adjudicate the same by giving liberty to all the parties by the competent authority, the same having not been complied with, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. Apart from the same this Court is not considering the disputed question of fact, which has been raised before this Court with regard to disability certificate issued in favour of opposite party no.6 as alleged by the petitioner.

¶9

On all counts, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application, accordingly, the same is disposed of.

¶10

…………………………..

¶11

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J

¶12

Ajaya

Minati Samantaray v. the Collector,Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minati Samantaray v. the Collector,Puri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Ku.Behera Vs C.E.O,Zilla Parisha

Sumanta Ku.Mallik Vs Union of India

Rasaraj Bhattacharya Vs C.Airport Authority

Binod Bihari Nayak Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Jagannath Security Services Vs Senior Gm,Cesu

Madhaba Nanda Nath Vs Dfo,Angul Kendu Leaves Division,Angul