Petitioner, a backward class candidate, sought appointment as Anganwadi Helper alleging irregularity in selection of a Scheduled Caste candidate. The High Court held that government guidelines permitted selection from majority community and dismissed the petition.
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.
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 33381 of 2011
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
AFR
Jhuna Nayak ..… Petitioner
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others ….. Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. S. Mohanty, S.S. Mohapatra, S.K. Das and S.R. Dash, Advocates. For Opp. Parties: Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, Addl. Government Advocate
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
DECIDED ON : 18.02.2021
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who was a candidate for
selection of Anganwadi Helper of Jamugaon-III Anganwadi Centre under Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Naugaon in the district of Jagatsinghpur, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the selection of opposite
2
party no.5-Smt. Swagatika Mallick and issue direction to the State opposite parties to give her appointment against the said post.
2.1 One of the intending candidates, namely, Pravati Bhoi filed objection before opposite party no.1 alleging irregularity in the scrutiny of application of one of
3
the candidates for the post of Anganwadi Helper. As Mahila Sabha could not be held on 03.09.2010, the CDPO, Naugaon-opposite party no.4 issued another notice on 02.04.2011 for selection of Anganwadi Helper for which Mahila Sabha was scheduled to be held on 15.04.2011 at about 12 noon at Jagulai Temple and the candidates were informed to be present on the scheduled date and time. Pursuant to such notice, though Mahila Sabha was conducted, but it was cancelled due to non-cooperation of the members.
2.2 Again for the 3rd time, the CDPO issued notice on 09.09.2011 for the self same center and Mahila Sabha was scheduled to be held on 17.09.2011. In the said Mahila Sabha, out of seven intending candidates, three candidates were present. The candidature of Khiralata Dei was rejected on the ground of nonsubmission of relevant papers. Sebalata Das, Niralata Panda and Golap Bhoi withdrew their applications as they were not interested to serve as helper. Therefore, out of seven candidates since three candidates withdrawn and
4
one had not furnished documents, rest three applicants, namely, Jhuna Nayak- petitioner, Pravati Bhoi and Swagatika Mallick-opposite party no.5 were present in the meeting itself, but due to misunderstanding and noncooperation of the members once again for the 3rd time the selection process could not be finalized. Due to untoward situation created by Swagatika Mallick-opposite party no.5 and her supporters, Parvati Bhoi lodged FIR against Swagatika Mallick and others, which was registered as Naugaon P.S. Case No.80(11) dated 17.09.2011 under Sections 341/294/354/323/506 and 34 IPC, corresponding to GR Case No. 631/2011, which is pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Jagatsinghpur.
2.3 The petitioner also filed complaint before opposite parties no. 1 to 3 regarding unusual happening in the Mahila Sabha. Out of three available candidates, two of them belonged to scheduled caste and present petitioner is the only backward class candidate. As per the guidelines provided for the selection of Anganwadi Helper, the CDPO, Naugaon issued a letter on 08.11.2011 fixing
5
the date of meeting on 15.11.2011 and the selection committee unilaterally decided Smt. Swagatika Mallikopposite party no.5 to be appointed as Anganwadi Helper, who had created disturbances for last consecutive meetings and against her FIR was lodged for creating disturbances. But without considering her conduct and by flouting the specific guidelines for selection of the Anganwadi Helper, Smt. Swagatika Mallik was selected on 15.11.2011. Hence this application.
6
contended that the area of selection consists of 244 women, out of whom 67 belonged to SC category, 128 from backward classes and 49 from General Category. Therefore, the selection of Anganwadi Helper should have been made from among the backward class candidates, who are predominantly occupied, as per the guidelines issued by the Government. But, without following such guidelines, the opposite party no.5 was selected by the authority, which cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.
Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties justified the selection of opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Helper in respect to Jamugaon-III Anganwadi Center and with reference to the counter affidavit filed in present application per contra contended that the writ petition should be dismissed in limine.
7
State opposite parties through virtual/physical mode, and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
6 On the basis of the facts, as delineated above, admittedly, for selection of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Jamugaon-III Anganwadi Centre a selection committee was constituted. The CDPO, Naugaon invited applications pursuant to an advertisement issued by her and in response to the same, seven applicants applied for and they were directed to remain present in the Mahila Sabha on the date and time specified in such advertisement, but the Mahila Sabha could not be held due to non-cooperation of the women members. Even though there was some disruption in the Mahila Sabha, but finally when the Mahila Sabha was held on 15.11.2011, on that date three eligible candidates were present, as out of seven applications, the application of Khiralata Dei was rejected on the ground of age and non-
8
submission of relevant papers, Sebalata Das, Niralata Panda and Golap Bhoi withdrew their candidature as they were not interested to serve as helper, therefore, the rest three applicants, namely, the present petitioner-Jhuna Nayak, Pravati Bhoi and Swagatika Mallick-opposite party no.5 were present in the Mahila Sabha held on 15.11.2011. The guidelines issued by the Government of Orissa in Women and Child Development Department vide letter dated 24.11.1997 in Annexure-7 clearly specify that the ORV Rules are not applicable for the selection of Anganwadi Helper, but, however, in the villages predominantly occupied by the SC, ST and OBC population the Anganwadi Helper selected may be from any of these communities which is in majority. The total population of the Anganwadi Center area under consideration is 668, out of which scheduled caste population is 192, other backward class is 55 and General 421. Thereby, following the above guidelines, the Anganwadi Center area is predominantly occupied by the scheduled caste persons and, as such, opposite party
9
no.5, who belonged to scheduled caste category, was selected and engaged as Anganwadi Helper. Therefore, the selection of opposite party no.5 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or contrary to the provisions of law. The selection of opposite party no.5 being in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Government vide Annexure-7, the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.
10
Anganwadi Centre as per the prevalent guidelines under Annexure-7.
Government has to frame rules, regulation and issue notification, administrative instruction and circular. They are not absolutely unrelated. Sometimes one supplements the other. They dispense with the necessity of legislation in minor or detail matters. Rules and regulations are all comprised in delegated legislation. The legislature is overburdened and the need of modern society is complex. The legislature cannot foresee every administrative difficulty. So it lays down the policy and confers discretion on administrative agency to execute the policy.
Yadaorao Jagannath, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 99 : AIR 1999 SC 3084, the apex Court held that in the absence of statutory rule, executive instruction or decision will operate.
24.11.1997, in absence of any statutory rule, will operate.
11
Applying the same, since decision has been taken in engaging opposite party no.5-Swagatika Mallick as Anganwadi Helper, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity so as to cause interference with the same in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
…………….………….. DR. B.R.SARANGI,
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 18th February, 2021, Ajaya/GDS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the selection of the Anganwadi Helper in accordance with government guidelines without adhering to reservation rules warrants judicial intervention.
Whether the selection process followed procedure despite disturbances and non-cooperation of candidates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Yadaorao JagannathReferred¶45
(1999) 8 S.C.C. 99 : AIR 1999 SC 3084 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
JHUNA NAYAK
STATE OF ODISHA
SWAGATAKA MALLICK
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
