Disposed

Prabha Xess v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Mar 2025WP(C)/5131/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Worker selection: the selected candidate was disengaged over an allegedly forged certificate, and a fresh advertisement was issued. The court directed the Sub-Collector to consider the petitioner's earlier objection, pass a reasoned order after hearing her within four weeks, and kept the new advertisement in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Sub-Collector to consider objection, hear petitioner, issue reasoned order within four weeks; advertisement dated 10.02.2025 kept in abeyance until then.

Prabha Xess Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No. 5131 of 2025

¶3

Prabha Xess

¶4

.… Petitioner Represented by

¶5

Mr. A.K.Jena, Advocate

¶6

Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha And Ors

¶8

.… Opp. Parties Represented by

¶9

AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

03.03.2025

Order No. 03.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 20.12.2023 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers of different centres, the petitioner was an applicant for Kacharu-1 Anganwadi Centre under ICDS, Kuarmunda in the district of Sundargarh. One Bahamani Lugun was selected having secured the 2^nd highest marks. The petitioner submitted an objection within the stipulated period addressed to the Collector on 10.04.2024, inter alia, stating that the calculation of total percentage of marks in respect of said Bahamani Lugun is wrong, inasmuch as she had not passed her +2 examination. This fact was ascertained by the petitioner upon inquiry. It appears that pursuant to such objection by order dated 20.11.2024,said Bahamani Lugun was disengaged. No reasons have been spelt out in the order. In the meantime, an advertisement has been issued on 10.02.2025 for filling up the post. It is submitted that the petitioner having secured the 2^nd highest marks, ought to have been engaged in place of Bahamani Lugun, who

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

played fraud by producing forged certificate, which were wrongly considered. Since the mistake was detected subsequently and she has been disengaged, the petitioner should be engaged in her place. Nothing has been placed on record as to what happened to the objection submitted by the petitioner before the Sub-Collector on 10.04.2024 referred above.

¶19

This Court therefore, deems it proper to dispose of the writ application with direction to the Sub-Collector-cum-Chairman of Selection Committee, ICDS Project, Panposh to consider the objection submitted by the petitioner, if not already disposed of in the meantime, and to pass a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The whole exercise should be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Till such time, the advertisement dated 10.02.2025 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶20

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶21

Deepak

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 03-Mar-2025 18:39:24

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Prabha Xess v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabha Xess v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalini Kumari Bai Vs State of Odisha

Diptimayee Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Rebati Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Meher Vs State of Odisha

Upendra Jena Vs Prafulla Ku.Misra

Kulamani Behera Vs State of Odisha