Dismissed¶34

Babita Munda v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC20 Aug 2025WP(C)/18740/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Helper appointment; selection by written test; selection committee travelling beyond guidelines; ICDS M.C. No.3 of 2012; Collector, Mayurbhanj; CDPO Bijatala; Women & Child Development Department guidelines dated 24.11.1997, 23.12.2006 and 29.04.2010; guidelines have statutory force in absence of statutory rule; thing required to be done in a particular manner or not at all; Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor (Privy Council); Mahila Sabha; quashing of selection upheld; W.P.(C) No.18740 of 2012 dismissed; interim order vacated; High Court of Orissa; Justice Sashikanta Mishra; order dated 20.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim order stands vacated ¶34

Babita Munda Vs State and Ors. — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order stands vacated

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper on the basis of a written test conducted by the selection committee was in consonance with the applicable Government guidelines. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

In the absence of any statutory rule, the guidelines issued by the Government have statutory force; if the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all, as per the Privy Council decision in Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

There is no provision in the applicable guidelines for conducting a written test to select an Anganwadi Helper.

¶34

Key takeaways

The Collector rightly interpreted the guidelines in concluding that the selection process was not in consonance with the statute.ratio¶34
There is no reason for the Court to interfere with the impugned order; the writ application is dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition dismissed. Challenge to order dated 25.05.2012 of the Collector, Mayurbhanj in ICDS M.C. No.3 of 2012 quashing the petitioner's selection as Anganwadi Helper (selected vide order dated 30.09.2012 of the CDPO, Bijatala on the basis of a written test held by the selection committee): HELD, the guidelines issued by the Government in Women & Child Development Department (dated 24.11.1997, 23.12.2006 and 29.04.2010) prescribe selection of a Helper by a committee consisting of the C.D.P.O. (Chairperson), Supervisor and A.N.M. in consultation with the women groups of the village, and contain no provision empowering the selection committee to make selection by conducting a written test; in the absence of any statutory rule such guidelines have statutory force, and if the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner or not at all (Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 4); the selection by written test was therefore not in consonance with the guidelines and the Collector rightly quashed it; no interference warranted. Writ application dismissed; interim order stands vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18740 of 2012

Babita Munda

.…

Petitioner

Represented by

Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

State of Odisha & Others

¶10

.… Opp. Parties Represented by

¶11

Mr. S.S. Routray, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. K.C. Rajguru Mohapatra, Advocate (For O.P. No.5)

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

20.08.2025

Order No. 09.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

The order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in ICDS M.C. No.3 of 2012 is under challenge in the present writ application.

¶18

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as Anganwdi Helper as per order dated 30.09.2012 of the CDPO, Bijatala in the district of Mayurbhnaj. Said selection was held on the basis of her performance in a written test held by the selection committee. The private Opposite Party No.5 challenged the procedure adopted by the selection committee by approaching the Collector in the aforementioned case.

¶19

Be it noted that the Opposite Party No.5 had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.419 of 2012, which was

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

disposed of by directing the Collector to consider the representation submitted by her. Accordingly, the Collector heard both the parties and disposed of the representation by means of the impugned order.

¶22

Reading of the impugned order shows that the Collector has referred to the relevant guidelines issued by the Government in Women & Child Development Department i.e., dated 24.11.1997, 23.12.2006 and 29.04.2010. The Collector has observed that there is no provision in any of the guidelines empowering the selection committee to make selection by conducting written test of the candidates. On such basis, the Collector deemed it proper to quash the selection of the petitioner.

¶23

Heard Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Routray, learned ASC for the State and Mr. K.C. Rajguru Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.5.

¶24

Mr. Biswal submits that the selection could not be made by the Mahila Sabha for which the selection committee decided to test the inter se merit of the candidates by conducting a written test. There is nothing wrong in adopting such procedure.

¶25

Mr. Routray, while admitting the facts, fairly submits that the guidelines do not prescribe any such procedure to be adopted.

¶26

Mr. Rajguru Mohapatra also makes similar arguments as the State counsel and submits that the selection committee has no power to travel beyond the guidelines.

¶27

The facts of the case are admitted inasmuch as it is common ground that the petitioner was selected on the basis of her performance in a written test conducted by the selection committee. Perusal of the guidelines referred above reveals that there is no such provision for conducting any written test to decide

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

the suitability of the candidates. In the absence of any statutory rule, it is the settled position of law that the guidelines issued by the Government will have a statutory force. Moreover, it is the settled position of law that if the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. Reference in this regard may be had to the oft-quoted judgment of the Privy council in the case of Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor 1936 SCC OnLine PC 4.

¶30

The guidelines dated 24.11.1997 clearly provide the following:-

¶31

“Procedure for Selection:- A Helper will be selected by a committee consisting of the following persons.

¶32

(i)C.D.P.O. of the Project Chairperson (ii)Supervisor in-charge of the area Member (iii)A.N.M. in-charge of the area Member

¶33

The above committee should select the Helper in consultation with the women groups of the village. In case, for any reasons to be recorded in writing it is not possible to make the selection in a particular village the selection may be made in the Project Head Quarters by the above mentioned committee.”

¶34

Thus, there is no provision for conducting written test to select Anganwadi Helper. This Court therefore, finds that the Collector has rightly interpreted the guidelines to arrive at the conclusion that the selection process was not in consonance with the statute. There is hence, no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is therefore, dismissed.

¶35

The interim order stands vacated.

¶36

Signature Not Verified Judge

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Puspanjali Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Aug-2025 19:17:27

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Babita Munda v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Munda 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susama Nayak Vs M/S. Truck Owners Association

Balaram Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Subhadra Jena Vs State of Odisha

Chitra Sahu Vs Iswar Sahu

Sailabala Maharana Vs Collector, Nayagarh and Ors.

Abhaya Prasad Nayak Vs Suchismita Jena