Tikina Mallick Vs State of Odisha

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Rout, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] M/s. M. Mohanty, P.S. Nayak & R. Behera, Advocates (for O.P. No. 6)

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

28.01.2025

¶14

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

¶15

An advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Pipili

¶16

on 30.03.2012 inviting applications from intending

¶17

candidates for their engagement as Anganwadi Workers in

¶18

respect of 23 Anganwadi Centers. Of them, Nijigarh

¶19

Page 1 of 14

¶20

Khurkhi-1 was one such center. The petitioner and the opposite party No.6 were the only applicants. In the selection process, the opposite party No.6 was found to have secured the highest marks but on scrutiny, she was disqualified as she was not a resident of the service area of the center in question. As such, the petitioner was selected for engagement.

¶21

Despite such selection, no engagement order was issued in favour of the petitioner for which she preferred appeal before the ADM, Puri, which was registered as Anganwadi Appeal No.12 of 2014. She also obtained information under the R.T.I. Act to the effect that the Selection Committee had decided to cancel the advertisement on the ground that the same was faulty and decided to go for fresh selection process.

¶22

Initially, the petitioner had not impleaded opposite party No.6 as a party in the appeal but on application being filed for intervention by the opposite party No.6, she was impleaded as a respondent. In course of hearing, the ADM directed the Tahasildar and CDPO to

¶23

Page 2 of 14

¶24

inquire with regard to the residence of both the candidates. It was found that both of them belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Center. Taking note of the above, the ADM held that rejection of the candidature of the intervenor (opposite party No.6) is not acceptable and therefore set aside the engagement of the petitioner. The Selection Committee was further directed to take up selection afresh. The order passed by the ADM on 25.10.2023 in the aforementioned appeal is impugned in the present writ application.

¶25

The State–authorities have filed counter, inter alia, stating that though the petitioner was selected as Anganwadi Worker, complaints were raised by the villagers of the concerned village before the CDPO, Pipili alleging that there were some faulty addresses of villages of Nijigarh Khurkhi-1 Center in the advertisement. As such, the selection of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till a decision by the Selection Committee. The next Selection Committee presided over by the Sub-Collector, Puri was convened on 06.04.2013 wherein it was decided

¶26

Page 3 of 14

¶27

to issue fresh notification for the center in question in view of allegations made by the villagers regarding mistakes in the advertisement dated 30.03.2012. It is further stated that the ADM being the Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties rightly set aside the selection of the petitioner and directed for undertaking fresh selection process. It is also stated that as per inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner has already married and her name was deleted in the Survey list of the center, while the opposite party No.6 was found to be a resident of the service area of the center.

¶28

Counter affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No.6 stating that the Block Level Advisory Committee in its meeting dated 19.10.2009 formulated and approved additional Anganwadi Center, namely, Nijigarh Khurkhi-2 Anganwadi Center for which advertisement was issued on 25.08.2015. The service area of the said center is Dhala Sahi, Nata Sahi and Patra Sahi. Four candidates had applied including the opposite party No.6. She secured the highest marks and was

¶29

Page 4 of 14

¶30

selected as Anganwadi Worker and engaged vide order dated 31.10.2015. In order to remove the confusion and anomalies the Selection Committee conducted fresh household survey and service area of both the centers. The petitioner is working as an ‘Aaya’ in Aditya Birla Public School since 01.04.2017 and further that she has married in the meantime for which her name has been deleted from the survey list of Nijigarh Khurkhi-1 Anganwadi Center.

¶31

Heard Mr. Brundaban Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Behera, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Maitrijit Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 6.

¶32

Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Rout would

¶33

argue that having once found the petitioner to be most suitable candidate and selected her for engagement as Anganwadi Worker, it is no longer open to the Selection Committee to cancel the advertisement and decide to go for fresh selection process. As per the advertisement dated 30.03.2012, it was clearly mentioned that no objection or

¶34

Page 5 of 14

¶35

grievance would be considered after 26.04.2012 regarding residence, education, qualification, caste etc. Therefore, the Selection Committee had no authority to take any further decision with regard to selection of Anganwadi Worker of the center in question after selecting the petitioner as the Anganwadi Worker. The opposite party No.6 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Nijigarh Khurkhi-2 center, which is also wrong. In any case, as per the report of the Tahasildar, the opposite party No. 6 did not belong to the service area of Nijigarh Khurkhi-1 center and therefore, was disqualified in the selection process.

¶36

Mr. Behera, learned State Counsel would argue that some objections were received by the villagers regarding mistake in the service area determination for which the Selection Committee decided to cancel the advertisement and to go for fresh selection. The ADM therefore, rightly upheld such decision.

¶37

Mr. M. Mohanty, appearing for opp. Party No.6 would argue that in the joint inquiry report submitted by the Tahasildar and the CDPO, it was proved that both the

¶38

Page 6 of 14

¶39

petitioner and opposite party No.6 belong to the service area of Nijigarh Khurkhi-1 Center. Since opposite party No.6 admittedly secured more marks than the petitioner, she should have been selected. The ADM has therefore rightly set aside the engagement of the petitioner.

¶40

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions noted above. Admittedly, pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.03.2012, there were only two candidates, namely, the petitioner and opposite party No. 6 in respect of Nijigarh Khurkhi-1 Anganwadi Center. It is also not disputed that the opposite party No. 6 secured the highest marks but then the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 24.01.2013, relying upon letter dated 07.01.2013 of the Tahasildar, Pipili found that the opposite party No.6 was not a resident of the service area of the center in question. As such, the petitioner was appointed. Surprisingly, on 06.04.2013, the Selection Committee met again and in so far as the center in question is concerned, it was simply said that as allegations have been received regarding error in the

¶41

Page 7 of 14

¶42

advertisement, it was decided to go for fresh

¶43

advertisement.

¶44

Perusal of the minutes of the meeting held on 06.04.2013 of the Selection Committee does not reveal any other reason nor does it specify as to who had submitted allegations and what the so called error in the advertisement was.

¶45

Be that as it may, the question that falls for consideration is, whether it was open to go for fresh selection after concluding the selection process pursuant to the advertisement. In this regard it would be apposite to refer to the guidelines issued by the Government in W & CD Department on 02.05.2007. Among other things the guidelines prescribe the procedure to be followed in the selection of Anganwadi Worker, which is quoted herein

¶46

below:-

¶47

Procedure

¶48

a) In case of engaging Anganwadi Worker for casual vacancies or for new Anganwadi Centers, notification regarding the Anganwadi Center where the Anganwadi Worker is going to be engaged will be put up simultaneously in the village, in the

¶49

Page 8 of 14

¶50

concerned Gram Panchayat, the Panchayat Samiti and the CDPO’s Office.

¶51

b) 15 days time will be given to the candidates to apply to the CDPO along with the documents in support of nativity, educational qualification, caste and any other. The receipt of the application shall be acknowledged by the CDPO.

¶52

c) On the 16^th day the CDPO will verify the documents of the applicants in their presence and will notify the name of the applicants in her office notice board and at the village GP and Panchayat Samiti level. In case 16^th day is a holiday then verification and notification of applicants will be done on the next working day.

¶53

d) 7 days time will be given for filing of objection, if any, by the community on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate.

¶54

e) The selection committee may take 7 days time to verify the objections received.

¶55

f) After the enquiry into the objection and verification of documents, the Selection Committee will give points to all the eligible candidates as per the criteria spelt out in the guideline The Committee will finally select the candidate who secures the maximum points. In case two or more candidates secure same points preference will be given to the older candidate. The Committee will notify the candidate select on the same day in Panchayat SamitI and CDPO’s office and within 48 hours at the GP and village level CDPO is authorized to issue engagement order in favour of the

¶56

Page 9 of 14

¶57

candidate selected and this should be issued within 24 hours of the selection of the candidate.

¶58

g) [deleted]

¶59

h) Sub-Collector will be the Chairman of the Selection Committee for the selection of Anganwadi Workers both for rural/tribal and urban projects in place of Chairperson Vice-Chairperson of the Panchayat Samity Municipality in case of rural/tribal projects and urban projects respectively.

¶60

i) ADM will be the appellate authority for hearing complaints regarding selection of Anganwadi Workers for tribal and rural projects and urban projects.

¶61

j) The Zilla-Parishad will be informed through its Secretary and P.D. DRDA by the DSWO about selection of the Anganwadi Worker and her engagement as such.”

¶62

Reference to the advertisement, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 of the writ petition, would reveal that the last date fixed for receipt of application was 16.04.2012. The date fixed for production of original documents by the candidates for scrutiny was 18.04.2012. It was specifically mentioned that if any person had any objection with regard to residence, education, caste etc. of a candidate then the same was to

¶63

Page 10 of 14

¶64

be submitted before the CDPO by 26.04.2012. This is entirely in consonance with the procedure provided in the guidelines quoted herein above. The Selection Committee is required to verify the objections received within seven days and thereafter finally select the candidate. It is also provided that the engagement order is to be issued within 24 hours of such selection. In the instant case, the Selection Committee however, considered the matter on 24.01.2013 and as already stated decided to select the petitioner. Again three months later, i.e., on 06.04.2013, the Selection Committee convened a meeting and reversed its own decision. This Court is unable to comprehend as to on what authority did the Selection Committee do so. As already stated, the procedure laid down in the guidelines is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, once the Selection Committee has completed the selection process by selecting a candidate, it obviously becomes functus officio as only the CDPO is authorized to issue engagement order in favour of the selected candidate. Of course, if there is any complaint regarding selection of

¶65

Page 11 of 14

¶66

Anganwadi Workers an appeal lies to the ADM but the guidelines do not confer any power or authority whatsoever on the Selection Committee to reopen or reverse its own decision after conclusion of the selection process.

¶67

Another significant point that strikes to the mind is the fact that the opposite party No.6 had never challenged the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. She was only permitted to intervene in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The above vital aspect as also the competence of the Selection Committee to set aside the engagement of the petitioner has not been considered at all by the ADM. It is reiterated that the Selection Committee could not have decided to go for fresh selection after conclusion of the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement. This amounts to arrogating to itself a power not conferred by law and must therefore, be held to be unsustainable.

¶68

Assuming for a moment that there was some mistake/error regarding the composition of the service

¶69

Page 12 of 14

¶70

area, which came to light after completion of the selection process, the proper course for the CDPO concerned would have been to refer the matter to the higher authorities like the Collector or even the Government seeking clarification and instructions. Even otherwise, till the last date of hearing, it was not brought to the notice of the Court as to who had submitted objections/allegations regarding the service area and what were the particulars thereof. Significantly, the resolution dated 06.04.2013 also does not spell out as to what the objection/allegation was. It is trite that the original order not having spelt out the reason, it is not open to the concerned party to improve upon the same in its counter filed before the Court.

¶71

Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law involved in the case, this Court is left with no doubt that the action of the Selection Committee in deciding to go for fresh selection is entirely without jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the ADM in confirming the decision of the Selection Committee is consequently held unsustainable in law.

¶72

Page 13 of 14

¶73

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the ADM is hereby set aside. The CDPO, Pipili (opposite party No.5) is directed to issue order of engagement in favour of the petitioner without any further delay and in any case, not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this

¶74

order by the petitioner.

¶75

……..…………………..

¶76

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶77

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 28^th January , 2025/ B.C. Tudu

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 29-Jan-2025 10:49:26