Laxmipriya Baral Vs State of Odisha

1. A serious issue was raised by the appellant herein before the authority concerning the certificate pertaining to the educational qualification submitted by the respondent no.4 that the same is fake, fabricated and manufactured for the purpose of securing the engagement as an Anganwadi helper. The case was remitted to the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Puri, who after receiving the complaint of such serious nature, made an enquiry and/or investigation from the concerned School who alleged to have issued certificate in favour of respondent no.4 and found that the same is forged and/or fabricated document. Despite such investigation having made, no conscious decision was taken by the CDPO, Puri which constrained the appellant to move to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Puri. The matter was

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

entertained and the CDPO, Puri transmitted all the records including the report or a communication from the School to the said appellate authority. After considering the papers and giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.4, the ADM, Puri arrived at the informed decision that the certificate pertaining to education submitted by the respondent no.4 is forged, fake and fabricated for the purpose of securing the job and a consequential order was passed in this regard. The order of the ADM, Puri was challenged by the respondent no.4 before this Court in the writ petition on the ground that the ADM, Puri is not a competent appellate authority and, therefore, he would not have entertained the proceedings.

¶16

The learned Single Judge after considering the stand taken by the respondent no.4, found that there is different scheme and/or guidelines concerning the “Anganwadi workers” and “Anganwadi helpers”. The reliance to the guidelines pertaining to the Anganwadi worker is misconceived and, therefore, the “appellate authority” defined in the scheme relating to “Anganwadi worker” cannot be extended and/or applied to a case of appointment of the Anganwadi helper.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 drew our attention to a Circular/Office Memorandum/Guidelines of the year 1997 relating to the appointment of the Anganwadi helpers across the Anganwadi Centres within the State, which contained an exhaustive provision relating to the eligibility for appointment to such post and the other conditions. The said guidelines is silent on the forum of an appeal and precisely on the basis of the said

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

guidelines, the Single Bench arrived at the decision that the ADM, Puri cannot usurp the power of the appellate authority not conferred under the said guidelines, but under the different guidelines concerning the Anganwadi workers. The stand taken by the Single Bench that the right of an appeal must emanate from the statutory document and the litigant cannot assume the right to appeal unless provided therefor. Equally, a litigant should not render remediless. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium has recognized its presence in the legal jurisprudence of the country and, therefore, a litigant feeling aggrieved by the decision taken or not taken by an authority, may approach the appropriate forum ventilating such grievance and seeking the reliefs.

¶20

Once the Single Bench arrived at the decision that the ADM, Puri was not a competent authority to take a final decision, there is no fetter on the part of the Single Bench to decide the cause as the material produced before it was sufficient enough to take a conscious decision thereupon. If there is no forum for an appeal, we do not find any deterrence creating an obstacle into the litigant to approach the writ Court for redressal of the grievance so raised.

¶21

Considering the serious allegations having made and it is improbable and inconceivable that a person will secure the public employment by using the fake, fabricated and forged document and shall remain in employment. The authorities have conducted an enquiry and have a strong reason to believe that the document is ingenuine and, therefore, it would not be proper to set at rest such issue but must be adjudicated upon by affording an opportunity of hearing to the person who would be affected thereby.

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

Several pleas have been taken before us by the respondent no.4, which in our opinion, requires a deeper scrutiny and an adjudication to be made in this regard. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned in the instant appeal and remit the matter to the Single Bench to decide the issue raised therein without being influenced by the fact that the appellant has approached the ADM, Puri, who appears to have devoid of any authority to decide the cause.

¶24

The writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶26

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶27

MRS/Laxmikant

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2025 20:12:05

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Laxmipriya Baral v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmipriya Baral v. State of Odisha

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

M/S.Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd. Vs M/S. Adarsh Noble Corporation Ltd.

Susmita Das Vs State of Odisha

Khulana Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Banalata Jena Vs Chandrakanti Jena

Akshaya Kumar Bitt Vs State of Odisha

M/S Sbb Construction Pvt.Ltd, Bhadrak Vs State of Odisha