Sulochana Behera Vs Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 19485 of 2024, W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024

¶3

&

¶4

W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024

¶5

Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶6

--------------- W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024 Malatilata Padhi @ Mohanty	……	Petitioner
- Versus -
Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak & Others	...….	Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024 Sulochana Behera	…….	Petitioner
-Versus-
Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak & Others	...….	Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024 Swagatika Puhan	……..	Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others	...….	Opp. Parties

¶7

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶8

For Petitioner (s) : Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate [in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024] . Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Das, Advocate [in W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024]

¶9

Page 1 of 10

¶10

Mr. S.N. Mishra, Advocate [in W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024]

¶11

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶14

JUDGMENT 11.03.2025

¶15

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

¶16

All the writ applications involve common facts and were therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶17

An advertisement was issued on 16.07.2013 by the CDPO of Basudevpur in the district of Bhadrak for engagement of Anganwadi Helper of Nakharaj Majhisahi Anganwadi Center. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.19485 & 17048 of 2024 were applicants. One Sulochana Behera, being the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024, was selected and appointment letter

¶18

was issued in her favour by the CDPO on 19.05.2012. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19984 of 2014 challenged such selection and engagement further on the ground that she being a widow ought to have been engaged but the CDPO with an

¶19

Page 2 of 10

¶20

ulterior motive had engaged Sulochana Behera. After hearing the parties, this Court, by order dated 16.08.2023, directed the Opposite Party authorities to select Anganwadi Helper by conducting fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with due process of law. This order was passed taking note of the apparent incongruity in the appointment order issued in favour of Sulochana Behera. However, instead of convening the fresh Mahila Sabha as directed by this Court, the CDPO issued a fresh advertisement on 01.07.2024. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024, Sulochana Behera (O.P. No.4) having played fraud in obtaining the appointment order dated 19.05.2012 should not be allowed to participate in the selection. The writ application (W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024) has been filed with the following prayer.

¶21

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore, prayed that tis Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶22

(i) Admit and allow this Writ Application;

¶23

(ii) Quash the advertisement, dated 01.07.2024 under Annexure-4, and thereby direct to conduct fresh Mahila Sabha, pursuant to the Advertisement, dated 13.06.2013 under Annexure-2 among the candidates applied, except the Opposite party No.4;

¶24

Page 3 of 10

¶25

(iii) Pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice;

¶26

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶27

2. Sulochana Behera has filed W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024 also challenging the fresh advertisement issued by the CDPO on 01.07.2024. The prayer in the writ application filed by her is as follows.

¶28

“Under the above circumstances, it is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, order by quashing the order passed by the Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-3 to the writ application.

¶29

And the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the persons as per the directions and observations made by this Hon’ble Court vide Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ application, wherein this Hon’ble Court directed for consideration of the case of applicants by a fresh Mahila Sabha.

¶30

And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.”

¶31

W.P. (C) No.25400 of 2024 has been filed by one

¶32

Swagatika Puhan. It is her case that as per the advertisement issued on 01.07.2024 she was duly selected and appointed as Anganwadi Helper vide order dated 16.07.2024, and has been

¶33

Page 4 of 10

¶34

performing her duties sincerely. However, suddenly without any show cause, the CDPO, by order dated 04.10.2024 recalled her engagement. She has therefore, filed this writ application with the following prayer.

¶35

“ On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that in the interest of justice this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶36

(i) Consider the facts stated in this petition, admit the same and issue RULE-NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order dated 04.10.2024 under Annexure-3 shall not be quashed after declaring the same is illegal and if the Opposite Parties i.e., O.P. No.4 fails to do so, the rule may please be made absolute;

¶37

(ii) Pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;

¶38

And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever-pray.”

¶39

From the conspectus of the facts pleaded in all the

¶40

three writ applications it is observed that this Court, in W.P.(C) No.19984 of 2014 directed the authorities to select Anganwadi Helper by conducting a fresh Mahila Sabha in compliance with the due process of law. This order was passed in the context of the advertisement issued on 16.07.2013. Said writ application had been filed challenging the notice dated 13.06.2013 for holding Mahila Sabha. The Mahila Sabha was held on

¶41

Page 5 of 10

¶42

12.07.2013 but no selection was held and the meeting was adjourned on 23.07.2013. This Court, after going through the facts held that the discrepancy with regard to the date of appointment of Opposite Party No.3 (Sulochana Behera) clearly shows that the order of appointment issued in her favour by the CDPO was without convening the Mahila Sabha. It was on under such facts that this Court directed to conduct a fresh Mahila Sabha. It is obvious that this Court never directed the authorities to issue a fresh advertisement. To such extent therefore, issuance of the advertisement dated 01.07.2024 is unconscionable. Consequently, the selection and engagement of Swagatika Puhan is also rendered unconscionable. In any case, such engagement was during operation of the interim order passed by this Court and must therefore, be treated as a nullity. Nevertheless, the order of engagement issued in favour of Swagatika Puhan has since been recalled.

¶43

A stand has been taken by the State that originally there was a notification published on 28.12.2009 for conducting Mahila Sabha. In the Mahila Sabha, seven candidates had appeared along with petitioner Malati Padhi @ Mohanty but no

¶44

Page 6 of 10

¶45

one could be selected due to public interference. The selection committee meeting was held on 11.05.2012 in the Office of CDPO, Basudevpur as per guidelines and the committee selected Sulochana Behera as Anganwadi Helper and issued engagement order vide letter dated 19.05.2012. It is further stated that the BDO, Basudevpur who remained in-charge of CDPO, Basudevpur from 22.05.2012 inadvertently issued notification dated 13.06.2013 for selection of Anganwadi Helper of Nakharaj, Majhisahi along with two other Anganwadi Centers. Said notification has not been worked out and that Sulochana Behera has been continuing as Anganwadi Helper. 6. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024, Mr. J.K. Rath, learned senior counsel with Mr. D.N. Rath for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17048 of 2024, Mr. S.N.Mishra for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25400 of 2024 & Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State in all the three cases.

¶46

Ms. Mohapatra would argue that it being proved that Sulochana Behera having obtained order of engagement fraudulently in connivance with the CDPO should not be

¶47

Page 7 of 10

¶48

allowed to participate in the selection process as directed by this Court.

¶49

Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel on the other hand would submit that it has not been proved that Sulochana Behera had played fraud at any point of time. Her selection was entirely as per the guidelines and therefore, cannot be treated as illegal. In any case, this Court having directed holding of a fresh Mahila Sabha, she cannot be deprived of participation therein.

¶50

Mr. S.N. Mishra would argue that Swagatika Puhan was engaged after a duly constituted selection process and therefore, recalling the order of engagement issued in her favour is wrong.

¶51

Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA would submit that there being a clear direction of this Court for convening a fresh Mahila Sabha, the same shall be held wherein all eligible candidates, including the three petitioners, can participate.

¶52

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful consideration of the sequence of facts involved and the materials on record, this Court finds that the

¶53

Page 8 of 10

¶54

coordinate Bench of this Court directed convening of a fresh Mahila Sabha. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged in writ appeal and therefore, has attained finality. Therefore, the authorities have no option except to convene a fresh Mahila Sabha. This Court takes note of the submission of learned State counsel that all the three petitioners can participate depending on their eligibility. The contention advanced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19485 of 2024 that Sulochana Behera should be debarred from participating cannot be countenanced in law because it would amount to violating her right to equal participation in the selection process guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the allegation that she had obtained the earlier engagement order by playing fraud has not been proved to satisfaction.

¶55

For the foregoing reasons therefore, all the three writ applications are disposed of by directing the Opposite Party authorities to convene fresh Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper as early as possible, preferably within two months from today.

¶56

Page 9 of 10

¶57

It is made clear that all the three petitioners, if found

¶58

to be otherwise eligible, shall be permitted to participate in the selection through Mahila Sabha.

¶59

..…..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶60

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 11^th of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno .

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-Mar-2025 10:47:26

¶63

Page 10 of 10

Sulochana Behera v. Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana Behera v. Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak

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

Kanhu Charan Nahak Vs State of Odisha

Abhisek Sharma Vs Union of India

J.Santosh Rao Vs Vice Chairman Bhubaneswar Development Authority

Mithila Bhoi Vs Sovagini Panigrahi

Bhabendra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Sabitri Pradhan Vs State of Orissa