Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 195 (ORI)

Binata Baral v. Collector

2006-03-10

L.MOHAPATRA

body2006
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : The petitioner in this writ application prays for a direction to the State-opposite parties to appoint her as Anganwadi Worker in Gopalpur Anganwadi Centre under Gondia ICDS Project on the ground that she had secured the highest mark and her case has not been considered. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she had applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker for the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre and there were also other applicants. After completion of selection procedure, it was found that the petitioner has secured highest marks and was placed at serial No.1 in the select list. In spite of the fact that the petitioner secured first position in the select list, no appointment letter was issued in her favour and upon inquiry, it was found that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No.4 regarding selection of the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal and subsequently by the Sub-Collector, Kamakshyanagar and on the basis of one such report, 4% marks were deducted from the total marks obtained by the petitioner as a result of which, opposite party No.4 secured the first position in the select list. The further case of the petitioner is that she was never given an opportunity of hearing neither at the time of inquiry nor at the time of action taken on the basis of the inquiry report. The petitioner, therefore approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12550 of 2003 and the said writ application was disposed of with direction to the opposite party No.1 to look into the grievance of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the oppo¬site party No.1 on 3.4.2004 and challenging the same, the peti¬tioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4646 of 2004. This Court disposed of the writ application on 20th April, 2004 since the petitioner did not produce the certified copy of the order passed by the opposite party No.1 and was granted permis¬sion to re-file after obtaining the copy thereof. The petitioner has filed this writ application after obtaining the certified copy of the order. 3. This Court disposed of the writ application on 20th April, 2004 since the petitioner did not produce the certified copy of the order passed by the opposite party No.1 and was granted permis¬sion to re-file after obtaining the copy thereof. The petitioner has filed this writ application after obtaining the certified copy of the order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the scheme under which such appointment was made and submitted that under Clause 8(e) of the Scheme, maximum five marks can be awarded for the experience obtained by a candidate in any area of the duties of Anganwadi Worker acquired in Government employment or in employment in a programme under a registered voluntary organization funded by the State/Central Government for the purpose. Relying on the said clause, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was working under Non-Government Organization namely, Arun Institute of Rural Affairs which conducted a Non-Formal Education Project sponsored by the Ministry of H.R.D., Department of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi from 15.9.1995 to 25.12.2000. In view of the above experi¬ence, the petitioner had been awarded four marks out of five in terms of Clause 8(e), but on the complaint of the opposite party No.4, the said marks were deducted from the total marks. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that similarly placed employees serving in several other Centres, the advantage of Clause 8(e) of the Scheme has been extended to the candidates for the purpose of appointment. The learned counsel drew attention of the Court to paragraph-15 of the writ application wherein the names of such candidates working in different Centres have been indicated who had obtained similar experience as that of the petitioner in an organization and had been given advantage of Clause 8(e) of the Scheme. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit submitted that the order of the Collector impugned before this Court clarifies the position and, therefore, there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the order of the Collector. It is stated in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit that the opposite party No.3 had published the provisional select list in the notice board instead of publishing the result. It is stated in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit that the opposite party No.3 had published the provisional select list in the notice board instead of publishing the result. According to the learned counsel for the State, the final selection list can only be published after approval of the concerned Committee of the Zilla parisad/Collector as the case may be. In the case of the petitioner, in the provisional selection list though her name found place at serial No.1 but when the matter was sent for approval, it was found that she had been illegally given four marks for the past experience and, therefore, the same was deducted from the total marks. After deduction of the said four marks, opposite party No.4 became No.1 in the select list and accordingly was given appointment. It is further stated in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit that the certificate produced by the petitioner does not reflect that she had any working experience relating to the duties of Anganwadi worker and, therefore, she cannot be equated with others who are alleged to have been selected on the basis of certificates issued by the Non-Government Organization. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.4 also adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State. 5. Clause 8(e) of the Scheme under which appointment of Anganwadi worker is made provides that maximum of five marks shall be awarded for experience obtained by a candidate. Such experience should be in any area of the duties of Anganwadi work¬er, which has been acquired in Government employment or in em¬ployment in a programme under a registered voluntary organization funded by the State or Central Government. The petitioner has produced a certificate issued by one Arun Institute of Rural Affairs, an Integrated Rural Development Voluntary Organisation, under its Non-Formal Education Project sponsored by the Ministry of H.R.D. Department of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether such experience should be taken into consideration for the purpose of Clause 8(e) of the Scheme or not. 6. The learned counsel for State drew attention of the Court to the several duties assigned to an Anganwadi Worker and the experience obtained by the petitioner to some extent satisfy the duty of an Anganwadi Worker. 6. The learned counsel for State drew attention of the Court to the several duties assigned to an Anganwadi Worker and the experience obtained by the petitioner to some extent satisfy the duty of an Anganwadi Worker. But so far as other duties are concerned, it appears from the certificate in Annexure-3 that the petitioner had no experience. On this score, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the State that the certificate issued by the said non-Government Organization in Annexure-3 does not strictly comply with the requirement of Clause-8(e) of the Scheme. The learned counsel drew attention of the Court to para¬graph-15 of the writ application and submitted that eight candi¬dates as indicated in the said paragraph having similar experi¬ence under non-Government Organizations were appointed as Angan¬wadi Workers. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court as to whether those candidates who are stated to have similar experience as that of the petitioner gained experience only in education or had experience in other fields covered under the duties of a Anganwadi Worker. In absence of such material, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of those candidates. 7. In view of discussions made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and accordingly the writ appli¬cation is dismissed. Application dismissed.