Premasila Bharasagar Vs State and Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶3

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

¶4

Premasila Bharasagar & another

¶5

....... Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties

¶8

Advocate for the parties For Petitioners : Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. T.K. Biswal, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Judgment: 02.09.2024

¶11

S.K. Mishra, J . This Writ Petition has been preferred with the

¶12

following prayer:

¶13

Prayer

¶14

“It is therefore prayed this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this case call for the L.C.R., notice be issued to the Opp. parties and

¶15

upon hearing both the parties quash Annexures-6, 8, 10 and the residential certificate granted in favour of the petitioner no.2 be restored and may pass any other orders/orders as deem fit and proper to the fact and circumstances of the case;”

¶16

2. As pleaded in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner

¶17

Nos.1 & 2 are the wife and husband, who got married on 21.12.2008. In pursuance of the said marriage, the Petitioner No.1 lived with her husband in her in-laws house situated at village Bijamal. While the matter stood thus, an advertisement was issued for engagement of Anganwadi Worker. Thus, to apply for the said engagement, the Petitioner No.2, who claims to be the husband of Petitioner No.1, applied for Residential Certificate for the Petitioner No.1 to the Opposite Party No.4 (Tahasildar, Titilagarh). After due enquiry, the Opposite Party No.4 issued the Residential Certificate in favour of the Petitioner No.1 on 01.08.2009, indicating therein that the Petitioner No.1 belongs to village Bijamal, PS: Saintala, Tahsil: Titilagarh, in the district of Balangir.

¶18

The Petitioner No.1 so also the Opposite Party No.6 were the two applicants for the post of Anganwadi

¶19

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶20

Page 2 of 30

¶21

Worker. On evaluation of qualification, Petitioner No.1 secured higher percentage of marks than the Opposite Party No.6. The Opposite Party No.5, who is the husband of Opposite Party No.6, knowing that his wife cannot be engaged as Anganwadi Worker, preferred an Appeal before the Sub-Collector, Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.3) praying for cancellation of Residential Certificate granted in favour of the Petitioner No.1 on the plea that the present Petitioners are not husband and wife.

¶22

3. In view of preferring such Appeal, the result for selection of Anganwadi Worker remains withheld. Notice being issued to the Petitioners, they appeared before the Opposite Party No.3 and filed their Objection so also Written Notes. However, the Opposite party No.3, without any application of mind and without considering the evidence on record, held that the Petitioners are not husband and wife, though the said Authority is not competent to decide the said issue. However, with the said observation, the Opposite Party No.3 vide order dated 14.01.2010, ordered for cancellation of the

¶23

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶24

Page 3 of 30

¶25

Residential Certificate granted in favour of Petitioner

¶26

No.1. Being aggrieved by the said order, as at Annexure-6, immediately the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Collector, Balangir (Opposite Party No.2). After hearing the parties, the Opposite Party No.2, rejected the said Appeal on the ground of maintainability, vide order dated 23.06.2011, as at Annexure-10. Hence, the Writ Petition has been preferred to quash Annexures6 & 10, basically on the ground that in case any person claims that the Petitioners are not husband and wife, onus lies on the said person to prove the same and the Opposite Party No.3 is not competent to decide the issue relating to the relationship of the Petitioners as husband and wife. The Opposite Party No.5, who was claiming that Petitioners are not husband and wife, has also not placed any evidence to prove the same and the Opposite Party No.3, without any application of mind, having been connived with the said Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6, has cancelled the Residential Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶28

Page 4 of 30

¶29

4. In response to the said prayer made in the Writ Petition, the State has filed a Counter through the concerned C.D.P.O. Apart from denying the allegations made in the Writ Petition, it has been pleaded in the Counter filed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 that though the Tahasildar, Titilagarh issued the Residential Certificate in favour of the Petitioner No.1 based on the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Gudighat, the said report does not disclose about the relation of Petitioner No.1 with Petitioner No.2. Further, while hearing Anganwadi Appeal Case No.61 of 2009, arising out of R.M.C. No.27/2471/2009, the matter was enquired into by the Lady Supervisor, Muribahal and the report submitted by her clearly speaks that the Petitioner No.1, though is a resident of Bijamal, yet, she did not find any information from the village that the Petitioner No.2 got married to Petitioner No.1. Despite giving sufficient opportunity to support their claims that both the Petitioners are married, they failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove their case. Hence, the

¶30

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶31

Page 5 of 30

¶32

certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 vide R.M.C. No.27/2471/2009 by the Tahasildar, Titilagarh, was rightly cancelled. It has further been stated in the Counter that after due enquiry into all aspects and giving chance of hearing to both the parties in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.61 of 2009, the Residential Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Titilagarh, in favour of Petitioner No.1 has been cancelled.

¶33

5. The Appeal case was initiated on 15.08.2009 and four months thereafter, as Petitioner No.1 failed to submit proof of her marriage with Petitioner No.2, the Opposite Party No.3, vide order dated 14.01.2010, was compelled to order for cancellation of the Residential Certificate issued in her favour vide R.M.C. No.27/2471/2009. It has further been stated in the Counter that after disposal of Misc. Appeal Case No.61 of 2009 on 14.01.2010, the Petitioner No.1 submitted a photocopy of Marriage Certificate issued by the RegistrarCum-Additional Block Development Officer, Muribahal on 08.09.2010, which clearly shows that the Petitioner No.1

¶34

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶35

Page 6 of 30

¶36

has managed to obtain the said document on a later date to challenge the order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 in Misc. Appeal Case No.61 of 2009. It has further been stated in the Counter that though the case relates to the year 2009, but the Petitioner No.2 has placed a Voter I.D. Card issued by the Election Commissioner on 12.01.2011, though the said card could have been produced before Opposite Party No.3 during pendency of Misc. Appeal Case No.61 of 2009.

¶37

6. The private Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6, being noticed, have also filed their Counter denying the allegations made in the Writ Petition so also opposing to the prayer made therein. Annexing various documents to the Counter, the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 have stated that though the Petitioner No.1 projected her claim to be considered as a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Bijamal, on the basis of the Residential Certificate purported to have been issued in her favour by the Tahasildar, Titilagarh, but she belongs to village Gambharikhola under Muribahal Gram Panchayat and

¶38

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶39

Page 7 of 30

¶40

as such, she is not at all competent to be granted with such Residential Certificate in respect of the village Bijamal.

¶41

Further, the Petitioner No.1 also applied for issuance of a Residential Certificate in her favour before the Tahasildar, Muribahal vide Misc. Case No.78 of 2011. Consequent upon such application, after due enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Muribahal; a Residential Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1, she being the resident of village Gambharikhola. As would be evident from the Enquiry Report so also Resident Certificate dated 25.01.2011, as at Annexure-B/5 series, the Petitioner No.1 has been described as an unmarried lady being the daughter of Murali Bharasagar.

¶42

The further stand of the private Opposite Parties is that, report of the R.I., Gudighat, dated 29.07.2009, which is the basis to issue Caste Certificate in favour of the Petitioner No.1, nowhere reflects that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Petitioner No.2 and in the

¶43

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶44

Page 8 of 30

¶45

said Report, nowhere the name of the Petitioner No.1 has been placed.

¶46

It has also been stated that the father of the Petitioner No.1 namely, Murali Bharasagar had applied for issuance of Income Certificate required for higher study of her daughter, Premasila Bharasagar in the year 2010. Accordingly, after due enquiry, the R.I. Muribahal found that the Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Murali Bharasagar and is the resident of village Gambharikhola and consequent upon such Enquiry Report, an Income Certificate was issued in favour of the father of the Petitioner No.1 vide M.C.C. No.456 of 2010, as at Annexure-E/5 series.

¶47

Similarly, Petitioner No.1 had applied for issuance of Caste Certificate in her favour before the Tahasildar, Muribahal and consequent upon such application, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Muribahal on 20.12.2010, wherein it was categorically observed by the R.I. that the Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Murali Bharasagar and a resident of

¶48

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶49

Page 9 of 30

¶50

village Gambharikhola. Accordingly, the Tahasildar

¶51

issued the Caste Certificate in favour of the Petitioner No.1, as at Annexure-F/5 series.

¶52

It has also been stated that the Petitioner No.1

¶53

applied for issuance of Residential Certificate before the Tahasildar, Muribahal. As would be evident from the Report of the R.I. Muribahal dated 20.12.2010, the Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Murali Bharasagar and a resident of village Gambharikhola. Accordingly, based on such Report, the Residential Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 vide M.C.C. No.78 dated 25.01.2011.

¶54

Likewise, the Voter List of village Gambharikhola under Muribahal Block, prepared consequent upon the amendment of the Voter List in the year 2010 and published on 21.07.2010, indicates name of the Petitioner No.1 at Sl. No.81, she being a resident of village Gambharikhola and being the daughter of Murali Bharasagar, as at Annexure-G/5. Hence, from the above, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner No.1 is an unmarried

¶55

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶56

Page 10 of 30

¶57

lady and has attempted to create documents in her favour to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Bijamal under I.C.D.S. Project by practicing fraud and on the basis of fraud Residential Certificate, even though she is not a resident of village Bijamal nor she is the wife of Petitioner No.2, who belongs to village Bijamal.

¶58

It has also been stated that the Sub-Collector, after descriptive analysis of the materials available on record, vide a reasoned order, allowed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party No.5 and cancelled the Residential Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1, which was, in fact, issued in clear violation of the Enquiry Report of the concerned R.I. and in suppression of material facts. The further stand of the private Opposite Parties is that, the Petitioners, while preferring the Appeal before the Collector, Balangir, filed Marriage Certificate, as at Annexure-8, which was applied much after passing of the impugned order by the Sub-Collector, Titilagarh, alleging the place and date of marriage to be

¶59

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶60

Page 11 of 30

¶61

‘Bijamal and ‘21.12.2008’ respectively. But the

¶62

Petitioners, by practicing falsehood, have managed to procure the said Marriage Certificate, as at Annexure-8, which runs contrary to the averments made in the Affidavit filed by the Petitioners before the Authority concerned, as at Annexure-H/5 series. In the said Affidavit, the Petitioners have stated that the date of their marriage is on ‘15.12.2008’, and was held at Shiva Temple at village Babejuri. But in the Marriage Certificate under Anenxure-8, it has been stated that the marriage was held on 21.12.2008 at Bijamal. From the said contradictory statement, it is apparent that the Petitioners have deliberately manufactured the alleged Affidavits and on the basis of the said false Affidavits, got the marriage registered only to substantiate the candidature of the Petitioner No.1 for the post of Anganwadi Worker and to defray the observation of the Authority in cancelling the Residential Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1.

¶63

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶64

Page 12 of 30

¶65

It has been stated in the Counter that the Opposite Party No.2 (Collector, Balangir), rightly rejected the Appeal filed at the instance of the Petitioners on the ground of its maintainability, as there is absolutely no provision under the statute to file second Appeal before the Collector.

¶66

7. In response to the Counter filed by the private Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6, the Petitioners filed a Rejoinder Affidavit on 1^st June, 2012 stating therein that the Marriage Certificate granted by the competent Authority under Annexure-8 shows that both the Petitioners have married to each other. None of the Opposite Parties has raised any dispute with regard to the Marriage Certificate. Thus, all other documents filed by the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 in their Counter Affidavit have no relevance, in view of the said Marriage Certificate. It has further been

¶67

stated in the Rejoinder that the Petitioner No.1 is now pregnant and is being looked after by the Asha Karmi, as per the Scheme issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare. In the Card (Annexure-12), issued by the

¶68

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶69

Page 13 of 30

¶70

said Department, the name of the husband of Petitioner No.1 has been mentioned as Pabitra Harpal (Petitioner No.2).

¶71

8. It is pertinent to mention here that after completion of pleadings, the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 also filed an Additional Affidavit on 21.12.2018 indicating therein that though the Petitioners want to challenge the letter of appointment dated 08.03.2010 issued in favour of Opposite Party No.6 as the Anganwadi Worker for the additional A.W.W. Bijamal, during pendency of the Writ Petition, for the selfsame cause, the Petitioner No.2 preferred an Appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Balangir in Revenue Misc. Appeal Case No.02 of 2013, challenging the appointment order under Anenxure-9 issued in favour of the Opposite Party No.6. After hearing the parties, the Additional District Magistrate, Balangir, vide order dated 06.12.2014 had been pleased to dismiss Revenue Misc. Appeal Case No.02 of 2013, being devoid of any merit.

¶72

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶73

Page 14 of 30

¶74

9. During hearing, Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that though one of the grounds to assail the order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Appeal Case No.61 of 2009 (Annexure-6) so also order dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure-10) passed by the Collector, Balangir in Misc. Appeal Case No.04 of 2010, is the Marriage Certificate dated 08.09.2010 issued by the Registrar-cum-Additional Block Development Officer, Muribahal, as at Anenxure-8, a typographical error has crept in the prayer portion of the Writ Petition to set aside the said Marriage Certificate dated 08.09.2010. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the prayer made for restoration of Residential Certificate granted in favour of the Petitioner No.2 may be read as ‘Petitioner No.1’, as is evident from the Residential Certificate dated 01.08.2009, as at Annexure-1, which

¶75

was admittedly issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of Petitioner No.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in various paragraphs of the Writ Petition, instead of Petitioner

¶76

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶77

Page 15 of 30

¶78

No.1, by mistake, it has been typed as Petitioner No.2 and the same be read as Petitioner No.1, instead of Petitioner No.2.

¶79

10. Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, reiterating the facts detailed in the Writ Petition so also Rejoinder Affidavit submitted that the Marriage Certificate was duly issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 in Form-(A) under Rule-5 of the Odisha Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1960 by the Registrar-Cum-Additional Block Development Officer, Muribahal on 08.09.2010 and with regard to legality and authenticity of the Marriage Registration Certificate, none of the Opposite Parties, including the private Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6, have challenged the said Marriage Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioners, which is dated 08.09.2010. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the Appellate Authority (Opposite Party No.3), was not competent to give any observation or finding with regard to the marital status of the Petitioner No.1 while dealing with an Appeal preferred before him

¶80

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶81

Page 16 of 30

¶82

under Rule-8 of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984. It is the Civil Court, which is competent to decide such issue, in case any dispute arises as to the marital status of the Petitioners so also issue as to whether the Petitioner No.1 is the legally married wife of the Petitioner No.2 and the same cannot be the basis to cancel the Residential Certificate of the Petitioner No.1 dated 01.08.2009.

¶83

11. Mr. Biswal, learned AGA for the State-Opposite Parties so also Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the private Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned orders dated 14.01.2010 passed in Appeal Case No.61 of 2009 so also dated 23.06.2011 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.04 of 2010 submitted that, neither the Appellate Authority nor the Collector, Balangir, before whom the Second Appeal was presented by the Petitioners, has given any observation regarding the marital status of the Petitioners. Rather, the Opposite Party No.3 (Sub-Collector, Titilagarh), came to hold that the Residential Certificate issued in favour of

¶84

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶85

Page 17 of 30

¶86

the Petitioner No.1 is defective one on the ground that the Petitioner No.2, who claims to be the husband of Petitioner No.1, was the applicant for issuance of Residential Certificate in favour of the present Petitioner No.1. But nowhere in the case record, Petitioner No.1’s relationship with the Petitioner No.2 has been mentioned. The R.I. only certified that the Petitioner No.2 is the permanent resident of village Bijamal. Such a finding of the Authority concerned was also based on the field enquiry conducted by the Lady Supervisor and her Report to the effect that the villagers and Ward Members of the said village stated that there is no proof regarding the marriage of Pabitra Harpal (PetitionerNo.2) and Premasila Bharasagar (Petitioner No.1), who came to the said village since one month only.

¶87

Affidavits were sworn by one Tinku Pradhan, S/o Late Ranaji Pradhan so also Dwaru Pradhani, S/o Suman Pradhani, before the Notary Public, Titilagarh, wherein they stated that Petitioner No.1 is a spinster and

¶88

she has never married to Pabitra Harpal of Bijamal.

¶89

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶90

Page 18 of 30

¶91

The Collector, Balangir, vide the impugned

¶92

order dated 23.06.2011, as at Annexure-10, rightly observed that Revenue Authorities have been vested with no power to decide the marital status of the applicants and because of the observation made by the Collector, Balangir, the present Petitioners preferred an Appeal vide Revenue Misc. Case No.02 of 2013 before the A.D.M., Balangir, challenging the selection procedure of Anganwadi Worker, Bijamal. The said Appeal stood dismissed vide order dated 6^th December, 2014, confirming the appointment of the Opposite Party No.6 as the Anganwadi Workers of Bijamal Anganwadi Centre under Muribahal I.C.D.S. Project.

¶93

12. On analysis of the pleadings so also documents on record and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is well evident that though Residential Certificate dated 01.08.2009 was issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 on being so applied by Petitioner No.2, the Report of the R.I., Gudighat dated 29.07.2009, based on which such

¶94

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶95

Page 19 of 30

¶96

certificate was issued by the Tahasildar, Titilagarh, does not indicate the relationship of the applicant-Pabitra Harpal (Petitioner No.2) with Premasila Bharasagar (Petitioner No.1). Similarly, the application in Form-1 dated 12.07.2010 submitted by the father of the Petitioner No.1, as at Annexure-E/5 series, indicates that her father applied for Income Certificate for the purpose of higher study of the Petitioner No.1 indicating therein her name as “Kumari Premasila Bharasagar”. The report of the Revenue Inspector, as at Annexure-E/5 series, also indicates the name of Petitioner No.1 as “Kumari Premasila Bharasagar” as on 28.07.2010. Similarly, the Income Certificate dated 23.08.2010 issued in favour of the father of the Petitioner No.1 indicates that the said certificate is being granted only for the purpose of higher study of his daughter “Kumari Premasila Bharasagar”. Similarly, the Caste Certificate dated 25.01.2011, as at Annexure-F/5 series, issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 indicates that she is the daughter of Murali Bharasagar, not wife of Pabitra Harpal and instead of

¶97

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶98

Page 20 of 30

¶99

“Smt.” repeatedly “Kumari” has been used before her name at various places of the said certificate. Further, the report dated 20.12.2010 submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Muribahal so also the Caste Certificate dated 25.01.2011, issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 by the Tahasildar, Muribahal under the Odisha Caste Certificate (for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 1980, in Misc. Case No.79 of 2011 indicates that the name of the Petitioner No.1 as “Kumari Premasila Bharasagar” and such Caste Certificate was issued in her favour for the purpose of services. Similarly, the Voter List published on 21.07.2010 pertaining to the said area indicates that the name of the Petitioner No.1, at Sl.No.81, to be the daughter of Murali Bharasagar and her age to be 24 years. Apart from that, the Affidavits as at Annexure-H/5 series, sworn by the Petitioner Nos.1 & 2, though indicates that they solemnized their marriage by exchanging garlands to each other at Shiva Temple at Babejuri on 15.12.2008, but the Marriage Certificate annexed to the Writ Petition, as Annexure-8, indicates

¶100

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶101

Page 21 of 30

¶102

that the date and place of marriage to be ‘21.12.2008’ at

¶103

‘Bijamal’ respectively. Admittedly, almost all the said documents appended to the Counter Affidavits filed by the Opposite Parties well demonstrate that as on the date of advertisement for the post of A.W.W. of the Bijamal Anganwadi Centre, under Muribahal I.C.D.S. Project, the Petitioner No.1 was shown to be the daughter of Murali Bharasagar and was the resident of village Gambharikhola.

¶104

13. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party No.3 was justified to order for cancellation of the Residential Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 vide R.M.C. No.27/2471/2009 dated 01.08.2009, on being so applied by the Petitioner No.2 and there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Appeal Case No.61 of 2009.

¶105

14. Apart from the same, as per the report dated 29.07.2009, as at Annexure-A/2, which was the basis to issue Residential Certificate dated 01.08.2009 in favour of the Petitioner No.1, does not indicate the name of

¶106

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶107

Page 22 of 30

¶108

Petitioner No.1 so also her tenure of stay in village Bijamal. Rather, the said report indicates the name of the Applicant to be “Pabitra Harpal” (present Petitioner No.2) and as against Sl. No.16 of the said Report, under the heading “Personal and spot enquiry report of R.I/Amin”, it has been indicated that Applicant Pabitra Harpal, S/o Hukum Harpal is the resident of village Bijamal. Further, the report dated 03.09.2009 submitted by the Lady Supervisor, as at Annexure-B/2, which bears the signature of some of the villagers of village Bijamal, indicates that she did not find any information that the Petitioner No.1 got married to Petitioner No.2 in terms of the customs of the said village nor there was any proof regarding Court Marriage or any documentary evidence was produced by the Petitioners in proof of such Court marriage and the Petitioner No.1 is staying in the said village for the last one month only.

¶109

15. That apart, other documents filed by the private Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 also well demonstrate that subsequent to such application, the Petitioner No.1

¶110

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶111

Page 23 of 30

¶112

herself also applied for Residential Certificate claiming to be the resident of village Gambharikhola so also other certificates claiming herself to be the daughter of Murali Bharasagar of village Gambharikhola. The Petitioner No.1 applied for Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate claiming herself to be the daughter of Murali Bharasagar of village Gambharikhol whereas, her father applied for Income Certificate on the ground that the said certificate is required for higher studies of her daughter, namely, “Kumari Premasila Bharasagar”.

¶113

16. Admittedly, liberty being granted by the Collector, Balangir, vide one of the impugned orders dated 23.06.2011 in Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2010, the Petitioner No.1 challenged the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.6 as the A.W.W. of Bijamal Anganwadi Centre under Muribahal I.C.D.S., Project, vide Revenue Misc. Appeal No.02 of 2013, which stood dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Balangir vide order dated 06.12.2014 and the said order of

¶114

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶115

Page 24 of 30

¶116

dismissal, not being challenged by the Petitioner No.1, has attained finality.

¶117

17. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no infirmity or illegality was committed by the SubCollector, Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.3), while passing the impugned order, as at Anenxure-6, so also the Collector, Balangir, while passing the order dated 23.06.2011 in Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2010, as at Annexure-10.

¶118

18. So far as the allegation of deciding the marital status of the Petitioners, while considering the Appeal Case under Rule-8 of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984, it would be apt to reproduce below the relevant portions from the impugned orders dated 14.01.2010 passed in Appeal Case No.61 of 2009 and dated 23.06.2011 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.04 of 2010.

¶119

Extract from Order dated 14.01.2010 passed in Appeal Case No.61 of 2009

¶120

“From the above my observation is as follows:

¶121

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶122

Page 25 of 30

¶123

1. The RMC No.27/2471/2009 dt. 01.08.09 issued by the Tahasildar, Titilagarh in favour of the Premasila Bharasagar is defective which is liable to be cancelled.

¶124

2. Though Pabitra Harpal is the applicant of the Residential Certificate for his wife Premasila Bharasagar but nowhere in the case record is the relationship mentioned. The RI only certifies that Pabitra Harpal is the permanent resident of village Bijamal.

¶125

3. The Lady Supervisor who made the field enquiry had reported that the villagers and the Ward Member states that there is no proof regarding the marriage of Pabitra Harpal and Premasila Bharasagar and Premasila Bharasagar has come to the village since one month only.

¶126

4. The affidavit sworn by Tinku Pradhan S/0 Late Ranaji Pradha, 2. Dwaru Pradhani S/0 Suman Pradhani before the Notary Public, Titilagarh wherein they states that Premasila Bharasagar is a spinster and she has never married to Pabitra Harpal of Bijamal.

¶127

From the above observation I am inclined to hold that as the Residential Certificate issued in favour of Premasila Bharasagar is defective one hence liable to be cancelled. The Tahasildar, Titilagarh be intimated accordingly.”

¶128

(Emphasis supplied)

¶129

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶130

Page 26 of 30

¶131

Extract from Order dated 23.06.2011 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.04 of 2010

¶132

“Rule 8 of the OMC Rules, 1984 runs as follows: (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Revenue Officer under rule 6 may prefer an appeal before-

¶133

(a) the Sub-divisional Officer concerned if the order was passed by a Revenue Officer, below the rank of the Subdivisional Officer,

¶134

(b) the Collector concerned if the order was passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, or the Additional District Magistrate, and

¶135

(c) the Revenue Divisional Commissioner concerned if the order was passed by the Collector.

¶136

Provided that no appeal under these rules shall be entertained unless it is preferred within period of three months from the date of the said order.

¶137

(2) The orders of the appellate authority shall be final.

¶138

Though it hold good that the Revenue Authorities have been vested with no power to decide on the marital status of the appellants, the appellant is at liberty to prefer appeal before the A.D.M., Balangir in case her candidature is hit in the selection procedure of AWW Bijamal AWC consequent upon the findings

¶139

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶140

Page 27 of 30

¶141

of the Sub-Collector, Titilagarh on her marital status as has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant. A close study of rule 8 of the OMC Rules, 1984 reveals that there in no provision of second appeal. The appellant should have sought relief before appropriate court of law against the order of the SubCollector, Titilagarh . Hence, the appeal petition is rejected.”

¶142

(Emphasis supplied)

¶143

19. From the said observation and findings of the

¶144

Sub-Collector, Titilagarh, as extracted above, it is well evident that the said Authority never decided the marital status of the Petitioners. Similarly, the Collector, Balangir held that the Revenue Authorities have been vested with no power to decide on the marital status of the Appellants. Hence, this Court is of the view that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners so also point urged in the Writ Petition that the Sub-Collector, Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.3), while dealing with the Appeal preferred by the present Opposite Party No.5, decided their marital status, contrary to the Marriage Certificate issued in their favour vide

¶145

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶146

Page 28 of 30

¶147

Annexure-8, to be baseless. This Court is of the view that Sub-Collector, Titilagarh only decided the legality of the Residential Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner No.1 on being so applied by Petitioner No.2, without disclosing his relationship with the Petitioner No.1, and it was so decided rightly by the Authority concerned in absence of any information regarding their marriage in the said Report submitted by the concerned R.I. and the purpose of applying for such Residential Certificate being “Employment”.

¶148

20. However, in view of the facts detailed in the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 29^th May, 2012, so also documentary evidence attached to the Rejoinder as Annexure-12 as to the pregnancy of the Petitioner No.1 and averment to the effect that she was being looked after by Asha Karmi as per the Scheme issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, indicating the name of her husband to be Pabitra Harpal (Petitioner No.2) in the Card issued by the concerned Authority, coupled with the Marriage Certificate dated 08.09.2010,

¶149

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶150

Page 29 of 30

¶151

issued by the Registrar-Cum-Additional District Magistrate, Balangir, it is made clear that the observation made by this Court so also the Sub-Collector, Titilagarh, (Opposite Party No.3) shall have no effect as to the marital status of the Petitioners claiming themselves to be husband and wife. As the Writ Petition is of the year 2011, it is made further clear that if the Petitioners, after their marriage, are residing together at village Bijamal, if they so desire, it will be open for both of them to approach the Tahasildar, Titilagarh for issuance of fresh Residential Certificate in their favour in terms of the Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 2019.

¶152

21. With the said observations, as detailed above,

¶153

the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶154

…….…..………………

¶155

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶156

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 2^nd September, 2024 /Prasant

¶157

Signature Not Verified

¶158

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 03-Sep-2024 13:11:00

¶159

W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2011

¶160

Page 30 of 30

Premasila Bharasagar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premasila Bharasagar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amiya Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Asim Kumar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Routray Vs State of Odisha

Maa Sarala S.H.G , Angul Vs State of Odisha

Jyotirmayee Patnaik Vs Union of India

Tilottama Nayak Vs Spl.Land Acquisition