Suprava Arana Vs State and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

Suprava Arana Vs State and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was eligible to apply for selection and appointment as Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre, given the notification restricting the centre to persons of the Padhansahi hamlet and the disputed service-area records, and consequently whether the Addl. District Magistrate's findings setting aside her appointment are illegal or erroneous and amenable to interference through this writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

Because the two service-area documents prepared by the same C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar (Annexure-4 dated 08.12.2010 listing hamlets Padhansahi, Ghodasahi and Harijansahi; Annexure-15 dated 30.03.2021 listing four hamlets including Jenasahi and Jamunapala but omitting Harijansahi) do not tally with each other, because the petitioner herself never stated in her affidavit that she belongs to the Padhansahi hamlet (her affidavit stating she is a resident of Kathamunda coming under the main Anganwadi Centre), and because the notification created Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre only for the people of the Padhansahi hamlet, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post.

Ratio / Principle

The findings and observations made by the Opp. Party No.3 (Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak) in the impugned order vide Annexure-6, setting aside the petitioner's appointment on the ground that she was not eligible to apply for selection and appointment as Anganwadi worker of KathamundaPadhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre not being a person within the service area of that centre, cannot be held illegal or erroneous.

Key takeaways

Consequently, the question of interfering with the impugned order through this writ petition filed by the petitioner does not arise.ratio¶¶76
For the reasons assigned above, the four decisions relied upon by the petitioner and indicated in Para No.7 of this judgment are not applicable to this matter at hand.ratio¶¶77
There is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner; the same must fail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack (single-member bench: Ananda Chandra Behera, J.), judgment dated 13.05.2026 on WP(C) No.9473 of 2011 (hearing 20.04.2026): Suprava Arana v. State of Orissa & Others. Petitioner, appointed on 07.01.2010 as Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre (Raipur GP, Dhamnagar Block, Bhadrak; Dhamnagar I.C.D.S. Project) after ranking first among three shortlisted candidates, challenged the final order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-6) of the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak in Anganwadi Appeal No.55 of 2010, whereby her selection/engagement was set aside on the ground that she was not a permanent resident within the service area of the centre, with directions to the C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar to engage the appellant Kabita Pradhan (Opp. Party No.5), the second-highest scorer, instead. Counsel argued her house lay in Ghodasahi hamlet and relied on Annexure-4 (dated 08.12.2010) listing service-area hamlets Padhansahi, Ghodasahi and Harijansahi, citing Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI ((2013) 13 SCC 427), Mamata Samantaray (W.A. No.351 of 2025), Sarojini Sahoo (WP(C) No.9330 of 2010) and Gayatri Nayak (WP(C) No.17098 of 2013). The High Court found that Annexure-15 (dated 30.03.2021) by the same C.D.P.O contradicts Annexure-4 by listing four hamlets (adding Jenasahi and Jamunapala, omitting Harijansahi); that the survey register enrolled neither the petitioner nor her father while enrolling Opp. Party No.5's father Krutibas Pradhan; and that the petitioner's own affidavit conceded residence under the main Kathamunda Anganwadi Centre rather than the Padhansahi Addl. Centre, for which the notification was restricted to people of the Padhansahi hamlet. Court concluded the A.D.M.'s findings could not be held illegal or erroneous, that interference did not arise, that the relied-upon precedents were inapplicable, and dismissed the writ petition on contest.

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

Suprava Arana

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS- State of Orissa & Others

… Opposite Parties .

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. N.C. Rout, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. (For the State) Mr. Debasish Samal, Adv. (For Opp. Party No.5)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 1 of 12

Date of Hearing : 20.04.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 13.05.2026

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-6) passed in Anganwadi Appeal No.55 of 2010 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3) and to allow the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre under Raipur Gram Panchayat (GP) of Dhamnagar Block in the District of Bhadrak.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, a notification was published on dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure-1) by the Opp. Party No.4 (C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar) inviting applications for the selection and appointment of Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre under the Dhamnagar I.C.D.S. Project.

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 2 of 12

As per such advertisement, the applicants/candidates

must have become permanent resident of the service area of the said Anganwadi Centre along with other criterias indicated therein.

The petitioner, Opp. Party No.5 along with others submitted their applications annexing required testimonials for selection as an Anganwadi worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre.

After verification of the documents of all the applicants including the petitioner and Opp. Party No.5 by the members of the selection committee, 3 candidates including the petitioner and Opp. Party No.5 were taken into the zone of consideration and the name of the petitioner was in serial No.1, as, she had secured more marks than the other two candidates including Opp. Party No.5, but the members of the selection committee selected to the petitioner as the Anganwadi worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre under Dhamnagar I.C.D.S. Project and accordingly, the Opp. Party No.4 issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. For which, she (petitioner) was

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 3 of 12

appointed as the Anganwadi Worker of that centre on 07.01.2010 and since then, she (petitioner) had/has been working as an Anganwadi Worker of the said Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre.

After appointment of the petitioner as the Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre, the Opp. Party No.5 filed a Writ Petition vide WP(C) No.12990 of 2010 on dated 27.07.2010 before this Court challenging the appointment of the petitioner, but as per Order dated 02.08.2010 passed in that Writ Petition No.12990 of 2010, this Court disposed of that Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner thereof i.e. Opp. Party No.5 in this Writ Petition to file an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the order of appointment of the petitioner of this Writ Petition as the Anganwadi worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre.

3. On the basis of the above order passed in WP(C) No.12990 of 2010, the Opp. Party No.5 in this Writ Petition filed an appeal vide Anganwadi Appeal No.55/2010 before the

A.D.M., Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3) challenging the selection

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 4 of 12

and appointment of the petitioner in this Writ Petition on the ground that, she (petitioner in this Writ Petition) does not belong to the service area of Kathamunda Pradhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre, for which, the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Kathamunda Pradhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre is against the guidelines of the Government. Therefore, her appointment is illegal and her appointment is to be cancelled.

4. After hearing from both the sides, the Opp. Party No.3 (A.D.M. Bhadrak) allowed that Anganwadi Appeal No.55/2010 filed by the Opp. Party No.5 in this Writ Petition as per the Order/Judgment dated 24.02.2011 and set aside to the selection/engagement/appointment of the respondent No.2 of that Anganwadi Appeal No.55/2010 (petitioner in this Writ Petition) and directed C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar (Opp. Party No.4 in this Writ Petition) to issue engagement order in favour of the appellant thereof i.e. Opp. Party No.5 in this Writ Petition as the Anganwadi worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre assigning the reasons that,

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 5 of 12

“on verification of advertisement published by C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar, it is seen that, Kathamunda Pradhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre has been created only for the people of the hamlet i.e. Padhansahi of village Kathamunda. As per such advertisement, only the persons of the Padhansahi hamlet can apply for the same.

On verification of Kathamunda-Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre area survey register, it is seen that, neither the name of the head of the house of respondent No.2 (petitioner in this Writ Petition) nor her father’s name has been enrolled in that survey register prepared at the level of C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar, whereas, the appellant’s father (father of Opp. Party No.5 in this writ petition) namely, Krutibas Pradhan has been enrolled in the said survey register at Page 16.

From which, it is construed that, the respondent No.2 (petitioner in this writ petition) is not a permanent resident within the service area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre area.

Further on verification of affidavit sworn and submitted by the respondent No.2 (petitioner in this writ petition), it is ascertained that, the respondent No.2 herself has admitted that, she is a permanent resident of village “Kathamunda” which is coming under the main Anganwadi Centre.

In view of the above discussions and available records, it is construed that, although the respondent No.2 (petitioner in this Writ Petition) is not a permanent resident of the concerned Anganwadi Centre area, but she has been selected/engaged as Anganwadi worker of KathamundaPadhansahi Addl. Anganwadi centre in violation of the

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 6 of 12

prevailing guidelines of the Government. Hence, her selection/engagement is set aside.

Due to the setting aside of the selection/engagement of the respondent No.2 (petitioner in this writ petition), the appellant (Opp. Party No.5 in this writ petition) being the 2^nd highest scorer is entitled to be engaged as the Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda-Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre. For which, the C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar is directed to issue engagement order in favour of the appellant namely, Kabita Pradhan D/o-Krutibas Pradhan (Opp. Party No.5 in this writ petition) in place of respondent No.2 (petitioner in this writ petition). ”

5. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order dated 24.02.2011 passed in Anganwadi Appeal No.55/2010 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3), the respondent No.2 of that Anganwadi Appeal No.55 of 2010 challenged the same by filing this Writ Petition being the petitioner against the Opp. Parties.

6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.5.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

I. Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union Of India reported in (2013) 13 SCC 427.

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 7 of 12

II. Mamata Samantaray Vs. State of Odisha decided in W.A. No.351 of 2025.

III. Smt. Sarojini Sahoo Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.9330 of 2010.

IV. Gayatri Nayak Vs. State of Odisha decided in WP(C) No.17098 of 2013.

8. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Annexures-4 & 15 and submitted that, the house of the petitioner is situated in the Ghodasahi hamlet of village Kathamunda and the service area of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre in Ward No.2 of that village comprises several hamlets of that village i.e. Padhansahi, Ghodasahi and Harijansahi and when the permanent house of the petitioner is in Ghodasahi hamlet of village Kathamunda, then, the Opp. Party No.3 should not have set aside her engagement on the ground that, she (petitioner) does not belong to the service area of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre.

According to him (learned counsel for the petitioner), when Annexure-4 is going to show that, the service area of the Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre consists with the hamlets i.e. Padhansahi, Ghodasahi & Harijansahi

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 8 of 12

and as the petitioner belong to Ghodasahi hamelt and the said document vide Annexure-4 relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner were prepared on dated 08.12.2010 by the C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar (Opp. Party No.4) and when in Annexure-4, the Opp. Party No.4 has stated that, the service area of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre comprises 3 hamlets i.e. Padhansahi, Ghodasahi and Harijansahi, then, the petitioner being a candidate within the service area of the Kathamunda Pradhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre, she was lawfully selected for the same.

It is very curious enough that, the other document prepared by the same Opp. Party No.4 on dated 30.03.2021 vide Annexure-15 relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not corroborating the annexure-4 and is going to show that, Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre comprises 4 hamlets i.e. Padhansahi, Ghodasahi, Jenasahi & Jamunapala, wherein the Harijansahi hamlet has not been included, though, the same was included in Annexure-4 and two other addl. hamlets i.e.Jenasahi and Jamunapala have

been inserted in Annexure-15.

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 9 of 12

The Opp. Party No.3 being the superior authority of the Opp. Party No.4 has clarified in the impugned order vide Annexure-6 that, Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre has been created only for the people of the Padhansahi hamlet and the applicants, those belong to such hamlet i.e. Padhansahi were entitled to apply for the selection and appointment as the Anganwadi worker of that centre.

In the survey register, neither the name of the petitioner nor her father’s name finds place and that said survey register was prepared under the supervision of Opp. Party No.4 and in that said survey register, the name of the father of the Opp. Party No.5 has been shown as a permanent resident of Padhansahi hamlet, but the petitioner in this writ petition does not belong to the said hamlet.

The petitioner in this Writ Petition has also sworn her affidavit stating that, she is a resident of Kathamunda, which is coming under the main Anganwadi Centre, but not under the Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre.

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 10 of 12

For which, she (petitioner) in this writ petition was not eligible to apply for the Anganwadi worker of Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre.

Therefore, the selection/engagement of the petitioner was set aside by the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak.

9. When the documents prepared by the same Opp. Party No.4 vide Annexures 4 and 15 relating to the service area of Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre are not tallying with each other and when the petitioner herself has not stated in her affidavit that, she belong to the Padhansahi hamlet and when as per the notification, the Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre was created only for the people of Padhansahi hamlet, then, at this juncture, the findings and observations made by the Opp. Party No.3 (Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak) in the impugned order vide Annexure-6 in setting aside the appointment of the petitioner holding that, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the selection and appointment as an Anganwadi worker of KathamundaPadhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre not being the person within the service area of that centre cannot be held as illegal

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 11 of 12

or erroneous. For which, the question of interfering with the same through this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner does not arise.

For which, the decisions relied on behalf of the petitioner indicated in Para No.7 of this Judgment is not applicable to this matter at hand for the reasons assigned above.

10. As such, there is no merit in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. The same must fail.

11. In result, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest.

12. As such, this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 13^th May, 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 15-May-2026 21:39:23

WP(C) No.9473 of 2011

Page 12 of 12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final order dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-6) passed in Anganwadi Appeal No.55 of 2010 allowing the appeal filed by Opp. Party No.5, setting aside the petitioner's selection/engagement/appointment as Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre, and directing the C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar to issue engagement order in favour of the appellant Kabita Pradhan (Opp. Party No.5), the second-highest scorer.¶¶19
Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3) · 24.02.2011
Prior proceeding
Notification dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure-1) published by the C.D.P.O, Dhamnagar (Opp. Party No.4) inviting applications for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre under the Dhamnagar I.C.D.S. Project; applicants were required to be permanent residents of the service area of the centre.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
Selection committee took three candidates including the petitioner and Opp. Party No.5 into the zone of consideration; the petitioner stood at serial No.1 having secured more marks than the other two, was selected as Anganwadi Worker, and Opp. Party No.4 issued her appointment letter.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Kathamunda Padhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre on 07.01.2010 and had been working in the post since then.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
Opp. Party No.5 challenged the petitioner's appointment by filing WP(C) No.12990 of 2010 on 27.07.2010 before this Court; by Order dated 02.08.2010 this Court disposed of that writ petition giving its filer (Opp. Party No.5 here) liberty to appeal before the appellate authority.¶¶30
Prior proceeding
On the strength of that order, Opp. Party No.5 filed Anganwadi Appeal No.55/2010 before the A.D.M., Bhadrak (Opp. Party No.3), alleging that the petitioner does not belong to the service area of Kathamunda Pradhansahi Addl. Anganwadi Centre and that her selection is against the guidelines of the Government.¶¶35