Aparajita Satapathy Vs Revenue Division Commissioner (Rdc) Central Zone, Cuttack

The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an advertisement was issued on 25.09.2023 by the CDPO, Dasarathpur in the district of Jajpur inviting applications from intending candidates for engagement as Anganwadi worker of different Anganwadi centers including Senanda Center under Biruhan Gram Panchayat. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the minimum educational qualification of the candidates must be 12th pass and that the merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the said examination.

¶22

Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted her application along with other applicants including Opposite Party No. 5. On 13.10.2023, a verification was conducted wherein the petitioner appeared and produced all necessary documents and accordingly a list of eligible candidates was prepared and objections were invited.

¶23

Page 2 of 14

¶24

The petitioner claims that at the time of verification, she had produced all her educational certificates including +2 and +3 mark sheets and certificates. No objection was filed submitted from any quarter. Out of 16 applicants, the petitioner and 5 others were found eligible.

¶25

According to the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.5 does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi center, which is evident from the fact that the name of her husband is Santosh Kumar Nanda, who is a resident of Nandipur. By wrongly mentioning the name of her husband as Santosh Debata, she had filed the application, though there is no such person named, Sasmita Debata, wife of Santosh Debata residing within the service area. As such, Opposite Party No.5 was ineligible.

¶26

In the merit list published on 03.11.2023 by the Selection Committee, the petitioner though secured the 1st position with 60.83 points and Opposite Party No.5 secured the 2nd position with 52.33 points, the petitioner was not considered on the ground that she had not uploaded the +2

¶27

Page 3 of 14

¶28

mark sheet in the engagement portal and the Opposite Party No.5 was thus appointed vide order dated 04.11.2023.

¶29

The petitioner challenged the selection and engagement of Opposite Party No.5 by filing appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority (ADM, Jajpur) being Anganwadi Misc. Appeal Case No.4 of 2023. The Appellate Authority, after considering the rival contentions held that the petitioner had submitted all the original documents during verification and no objection had been received against her candidature. She stood in the 1st position and therefore cancelling her candidature was illegal. Accordingly, the appointment of Opposite Party No.5 was set aside and the concerned authority was directed to disengage her and appoint the petitioner in her place. The petitioner was appointed on 24.06.2024 and is continuing till date.

¶30

Opposite No.5 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12288 of 2024 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority but by order dated 17.05.2024, this Court granted liberty to her to prefer Second Appeal. Pursuant to

¶31

Page 4 of 14

¶32

such order, Opposite Party No.5 preferred Second Appeal before the RDC, (Central Division), Cuttack.

¶33

The Second Appellate Authority after considering the rival contentions and the documents held that the petitioner had not uploaded her intermediate mark sheet in the online portal, which was contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement. As such, the finding of the 1st Appellate Authority was held to be not correct and that the Selection Committee had committed no error in selecting the Opposite Party No.5. The appeal was thus allowed and the order of the 1st Appellate Authority was set aside and the selection of Opposite Party No.5 was upheld.

¶34

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶35

“ The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to stay the impugned the order dated 04/07/2025 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition passed by RDC, (Central Division)*, Cuttack in Anganwadi Misc. Appeal No. 4/2024, till disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶36

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

¶37

Page 5 of 14

¶38

The Opposite Parties did not file any counter but preferred to make oral submissions. Additionally Opposite Party No.5 filed her written note of submissions enclosing certain relevant documents. Be it noted that Opposite Party No.5 had filed a Caveat.

¶39

Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Sethy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 5.

¶40

Dr. Lenka assails the impugned order by submitting that the Selection Committee held the petitioner eligible and accordingly her name was included in the list of eligible candidates and objections were invited but no objection was received from any quarter. Further, the petitioner produced her original educational certificates at the time of verification of documents. Therefore, the Selection Committee could not have cancelled her candidature on the ground of not uploading the +2 certificate. The Opposite Party No.5 had never objected to

¶41

the candidature of the petitioner. On the contrary, she

¶42

Page 6 of 14

¶43

herself not being a resident of the service area was wrongly selected by the Selection Committee. The 1st Appellate Authority therefore, rightly held that the petitioner being the more meritorious candidate should have been selected. The Second Appellate Authority, acting purely on technicalities set aside the order of the 1st Appellate Authority. Dr. Lenka has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Bandita Rout v. State of Odisha and Others [W.A.No.1122 of 2022] and Sarojini Sahoo v. State of Odisha and others [W.P.(C) No. 4456 of 2024] in support of his contentions.

¶44

Mr. Sethy, learned State Counsel would argue that there was clear stipulation in the advertisement that the candidates should upload their educational certificates along with other documents. The petitioner had not uploaded her +2 and +3 certificates and did so during verification of documents. The Selection Committee therefore did not consider her candidature as the same was contrary to the condition in the advertisement.

¶45

Page 7 of 14

¶46

Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 5 would argue that the petitioner had not submitted her +2 mark sheet along with her online application even on the last date of submitting the application. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.5 had uploaded all necessary documents. As per information obtained by Opposite Party No.5, under the RTI Act, the petitioner had submitted an application on 13.10.2023 to the CDPO stating that she had mistakenly not uploaded the required mark sheets along with her online application and requested for accepting her original mark sheet at the time of verification. This, according to Mr. Mohanty is in violation of the conditions laid down in the advertisement for which the Second Appellate Authority rightly held that the Selection Committee had committed no error in selecting Opposite Party No.5. Mr. Mohanty has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Suravi Bisi v. SubCollector, Sonepur and Others, 2024 (II) ILR –CUT-234.

¶47

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon going through the materials on record

¶48

Page 8 of 14

¶49

including the impugned order as well as the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority, this Court finds that the first issue that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner had uploaded her educational certificates along with her online application. In this regard the petitioner claims to have uploaded all her certificates along with the online application. A copy of the online application of the petitioner enclosed as Annexure-2 does not support such contention. The 1st Appellate Authority somehow ascertained ‘that the petitioner had uploaded all the documents along with her online application. This finding has been reversed by the Second Appellate Authority.

¶50

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 has enclosed copy of the information obtained by Opposite Party No.5 on 28.02.2025 under the RTI Act, which contains application dated 13.10.2023 supposedly submitted by the petitioner admitting that she had not submitted the documents in question mistakenly along with her online application and requested for accepting the same at the time of verification. The authenticity of the

¶51

Page 9 of 14

¶52

aforesaid information under RTI Act has not been established to satisfaction before this Court. Be that as it may, fact remains that the petitioner has not been able to establish with concrete evidence that she had uploaded the education qualification along with her online application. The finding of the 1st Appellate Authority in this regard cannot therefore be sustained. Consequently, the finding of the 2nd Appellate Authority in this context cannot be faulted with.

¶53

Having held as above, the next question that falls for consideration is, whether failure of the petitioner to upload the relevant documents along with her online application can be treated as fatal to her candidature. There is no dispute that as between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 5 , the former is more meritorious having secured 60.83 points as compared to 52.33 points secured by the Opposite Party No.5. There is also no dispute that despite her failure to upload her documents along with her online application the petitioner’s candidature was accepted as evident from the list of eligible

¶54

Page 10 of 14

¶55

candidates furnished by the CDPO inviting objections. It is common ground that the petitioner had produced the original certificates/documents at the time of verification whereupon the list of eligible candidates was published. So, it is not a case of non-production of the certificates at all. It has not been disputed by any party that the petitioner has +2 and +3 qualifications. The marks obtained by her in the said examination are also not disputed. So, the petitioner fulfills all eligibility conditions stipulated in the guidelines as reflected in the advertisement. The only fault that can be attributed to her is her failure to upload the documents along with her online application. This, even according to Opposite Party No.5, was a mistake and not a deliberate act. Had it been a case of a person not possessing the requisites qualification and making a false claim, the matter would have been different. But this is a case where the petitioner fully satisfies the eligibility criteria for selection as Anganwadi worker as per the guidelines. The only violation, as already stated, is non-compliance of the condition of the

¶56

advertisement. Moreover, had the certificates not been

¶57

Page 11 of 14

¶58

produced during verification but thereafter, the matter would also have been different. So, as on the date of verification the petitioner had produced her original documents/certificates. In the considered view of this Court, this omission cannot be treated as fatal to the candidature of the petitioner as it would run against the spirit of guidelines dated 15.03.2023 which stipulate that a candidate, to be eligible for engagement as Anganwadi worker must have +2 qualification. In the instant case, the petitioner not only has +2 qualification but also the higher +3 qualification for which she was awarded extra weightage of marks as per the guidelines. Thus, having fulfilled the basic eligibility criteria, the petitioner being the most meritorious among all candidates, deserves to be selected. The technicalities such as those pointed out by the 2nd Appellate Authority in the impugned order cannot come in the way as the same is simply a matter of procedure and does not affect and cannot nullify the fact of eligibility of the petitioner.

¶59

Page 12 of 14

¶60

In the case of Surav Bisi (supra), the facts were

¶61

totally different inasmuch as the same relate to submission of a valid residential certificate by the petitioner therein. It is said case the petitioner had submitted a four year old residential certificate along with her application and obtained another certificate during the selection process. Thus, she could not prove that she had satisfied the basic requirement of being a resident of the service area of the center in question for which this Court did not accept the contention that she was eligible. The present case is on an entirely different footing inasmuch as the fact that the petitioner had the required qualification is not disputed at all and the only objection raised is with regard to nonuploading of her certificate along with her application. She having submitted the original certificates during verification and being included in the list of eligible candidates, there is no reason to reject her candidature, more so as she is the most meritorious candidate among all.

¶62

Page 13 of 14

¶63

From the foregoing narration, it is evident that

¶64

the reasoning adopted by the Second Appellate Authority to find fault with the candidature of the petitioner, being based on technicality is untenable. The impugned order is therefore, rendered unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶65

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The Opposite Party-authorities are directed to act in terms of the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority by treating the petitioner as the selected candidate and by allowing her to continue as such.

¶66

..……..…………………..

¶67

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶68

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 8th August, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno

¶69

Signature Not Verified

¶70

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 10-Aug-2025 11:54:46

¶71

Page 14 of 14

Aparajita Satapathy v. Revenue Division Commissioner (Rdc) Central Zone, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aparajita Satapathy v. Revenue Division Commissioner (Rdc) Central Zone, Cuttack

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

Minakshi Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Jayanti Rana Vs State of Odisha

Archanabala Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Jagabandhu Paramanik Vs Sripali Ghose

Lizarani Samantaray Vs Collector,Ganjam

Raghunath Rout Vs State of Orissa