Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 847 (ORI)

Lipika Tunga v. State of Orissa

2007-11-07

N.PRUSTY

body2007
ORDER 07.11.07 — The petitioner, in response to the notification dated 10.04.2006 (Annexure-1), had applied for her engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Gauriprasad Anganwadi Centre under Chandbali I.C.D.S. Project in the District of Bhadrak. The above said advertisement was made while the old guidelines, with regard to engagement of Anganwadi worker, was in vogue. It is submitted that after submission of applications, the process of selection commenced and while the same was almost at the stage of completion, another “guidelines with regard to engagement of Anganwadi Worker” was issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 in supersession of earlier guidelines. There was no clause in the new guidelines stipulating anything as to whether the same would have prospective on retrospective effect. But in the forwarding letter of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary it has been mentioned that : “Wherever the Anganwadi Workers have not been selected and engaged as per the earlier guidelines, the selection will be done as per these revised guidelines.” This observation of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the effect that “the selection will be done as per these revised guidelines” has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State at length. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners right for engagement flows from the notification which was issued on the basis of old guidelines. Once a notifica¬tion has been issued under the old guidelines and recruitment process was initiated/commenced on the basis of such guidelines, then the same should have its logical end and should not have been abandoned in the mid way. Since in this case notification inviting applications was issued under the old guidelines, has not been cancelled by the competent authority, the authority should have directed to continue and complete the process of selection in accordance with that guidelines. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that even though the selection process commenced as per the earlier guide¬lines, since it has not been completed, the State has power to initiate fresh selection process in conformity with the new guidelines. As stated earlier the new guidelines shall have only pro¬spective effect, even if the same is not provided in the guideline itself. The new guidelines shall only be applicable from the date on which it was issued by the appropriate Govern¬ment. As stated earlier the new guidelines shall have only pro¬spective effect, even if the same is not provided in the guideline itself. The new guidelines shall only be applicable from the date on which it was issued by the appropriate Govern¬ment. Law is well settled that once a recruitment process is initiated/commenced in consonance with a particular guidelines, which was in vogue then, that cannot be stalled in the mid way on the ground that a new guideline in that regard has been issued during/before the period of finalization of that selection proc¬ess. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a recruitment process once commenced shall have its logical end in consonance with the guidelines pursuant to which such notifica¬tion was issued. That apart abandoning a recruitment process which has already commenced earlier and initiating a fresh re¬cruitment process shall not only be a time consuming process but will also involve huge expenses for the State Exchequer and the same will cause prejudice to the persons who have applied in consonance with the notification issued earlier. In the new guidelines dated 02.05.2007 itself it has been mentioned that “these guidelines shall supersede all previous guidelines and circulars on this subject. However, any action taken under the previous guidelines and circulars shall be saved subject to the conditions attached to the engagement.” Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the contents of the writ petition as well as the new guidelines dated 02.05.2007 itself, I am not inclined to accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the State. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable to issue appropriate direction to the opposite parties to complete the selection process on the basis of the notification, which was issued basing on the earlier guidelines. In view of the above, the opposite parties, more particular¬ly, opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 are directed to complete the selection process initiated earlier as per the notification-dated 10.04.2006 (Annexure-1) in respect of Gauriprasad Anganwadi Centre under Chandabali ICDS Project in the district of Bhadrak. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observation/direction. Requisites for communication of the order along with the copy of the writ petition to the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 be filed within one week. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observation/direction. Requisites for communication of the order along with the copy of the writ petition to the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 be filed within one week. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Petition disposed of.