The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing the petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, to work at a centre where she did not reside despite the area being reorganized. The Court found no infirmity in the Collector's order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011
Urmila Karan
…. Petitioner
Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Debasish Nayak, A.G.A.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order No.
ORDER
12.09.2023
1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2 . Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3 . This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.10.2011 under Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, Puri wherein the Petitioner has been directed to continue as Anganwadi Worker in Bedapur-1 Anganwadi Centre functioning at Tinitiar and her representation to transfer her to Khandiakuda has been rejected.
4 . The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to the advertisement, she along with others applied for the post
Page 1 of 6
// 2 //
of “Anganwadi Worker” in Bedapur-1 Anganwadi Centre. After due process of selection, she was selected as Anganwadi Worker for Bedapur-1 Anganwadi Centre. At that time, Bedapur-1 Anganwadi Centre was consisting of four hamlets, namely, Khandiakuda, Tinitiar, Shasan and Harijan Sahi. Subsequently, Block Level Coordination Committee of Gop Block decided to create two more Anganwadi Centres i.e. one at Tinitiar and other at Khandiakuda.
5 . However, the Collector, Puri vide order dated 13.10.2011 passed the following order:-
“ 1. The existing Bedapur-I AWC will function at Tinitiara as before. There is no need to open another centre styled as Tinitirara shifting Bedaur-1 to any other place. The petitioner Smt. Urmila Karan will continue at Bedapur-1 centre functioning at Tinitiara and her representation to transfer her to Khandiakuda merits no consideration and rejected.
2 . Khandiakuda village covering population of 517, a new Anganwadi Centre will be opened at Khandiakuda.
3 . Steps should be taken for opening of a Anganwadi Centre at Harijan Sahi with population of 400.
The C .D.P.O. Gop is directed to take follow up action accordingly.”
6. Thus, as per the order of the Collector, there are
three Anganwadi Centres, named, Bedapur-I,
Page 2 of 6
// 3 //
Khandiakuda and Harijan Sahi. Khandiakuda Centre will be opened at Khandiakuda. Another Anganwadi Centre will be opened at Harijan Sahi. Then, Bedapur-I Anganwadi Centre which has been directed by the Collector, Puri to function at Tinitiar shall cover the remaining two hamlets, namely, Tinitiar and Shasan. Now the question arises as to whether the petitioner who belongs to the service area of Khandiakuda village can be directed to work as Anganwadi Worker in Bedapur-1 Anganwadi Centre functioning at Tinitiar?
7 . As per the guidelines issued for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centres, the Anganwadi Workers must belong to the service area. Therefore, the direction of the Collector, Puri that the petitioner who belongs to Khandiakuda shall function as Anganwadi Worker in Bedapur-I Anganwadi Centre at Tinitiar is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government to the effect that the Anganwadi Worker should be the resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. Apart from this, admittedly, Khandiakuda is situated at one side of the river Kushabhadra and other three hamlets are situated at the other side of the said river. Therefore, the petitioner should continue as Anganwadi
Page 3 of 6
// 4 //
Worker for Khandlakuda Anganwadi Centre which was earlier included under the Bedapur-I Anganwadi Centre. 8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011 was disposed of earlier by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2012 directing that the present Petitioner who has been selected as Anganwadi Worker for Badapur-I Anganwadi Centre shall work as Anganwadi Worker in newly created Khandiakuda Anganwadi Centre. Consequently, there shall be fresh selection for Harijan Sahi and Bedapur-I which shall be consisting of two hamlets, namely, Shasan and Tinitiar. The Opposite Party No.3/ C.D.P.O., Gop was directed to conduct a fresh selection of Anganwadi Worker for Bedapur-I and Harijan Sahi Anganwadi Centres. The order dated 13.10.2011 under Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, Puri was modified to the extent indicated above.
9 . However, the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. Sovarani Sahoo had filed RVWPET No.147 of 2012 with a prayer to review/ recall the order dated 03.05.2012 passed by another Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011. Thereafter, another Bench of this Court vide order dated
Page 4 of 6
// 5 //
18.06.2018 disposed of the RVWPET No.147 of 2012 by passing the order as follows:
“xx xxx xx xx
Under the circumstances, this Court finds, the petitioner has the case for review of the order dated 03.05.2012 involving W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011. Accordingly, this Court interfering in the impugned order dated 03.05.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011 recalls the same. As the review petitioner is a necessary party to the writ petition, the petitioner in the W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011 is directed to make the review petitioner as Opposite Party No.4 to the writ petition. An extra copy of the writ petition along with all enclosures be served on Shri Patra, learned counsel for the review petitioner here. A fresh ‘Vakalatnama’ on behalf of the opposite party no.4 be filed by Shri Patra within a period of two weeks hence. Counter affidavit, if any, to the writ petition be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Xx xx xx xx”
10. Pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2019 passed in RVWPET No.147 of 2012, the review Petitioner Sovarani Sahoo was impleaded as the Opposite Party No.4 in W.P.30770 of 2021.
11 . Perused the order dated 13.10.2011 under Annexure-
5 passed by the Collector, Puri, the order dated 03.05.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.30770 of 2011 and the
Page 5 of 6
// 6 //
order dated 18.06.2018 passed in RVWPET No.147 of 2012 passed by another Benches of this Court and the documents available on records.
12. Having perused the aforesaid orders and gone through the documents available on records, this Court finds no scope to interfere with the order dated 13.10.2011 under Annexure-5 passed by the Collector, Puri. The order passed by the Collector does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, the prayer of the present Petitioner is liable to be dismissed. However, if the Anganwadi Workers who are working at different stations have any grievance regarding their inconvenience in travelling, they may approach to the Collector and the Collector shall consider their grievance and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
13. In view of the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of being dismissed.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 16-Sep-2023 14:51:29
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Collector was justified in directing the petitioner to continue at Bedapur-I Anganwadi Centre instead of the newly created Khandiakuda Centre where she resided.
Whether the order of the Collector is infirm in light of the prior judgment directing the petitioner to the newly created centre.
Urmila Karan
State of Odisha & Ors.
Sovarani Sahoo
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
