Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 503 (ORI)

Sarojini Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2013-12-18

B.R.SARANGI

body2013
JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. : The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in Appeal No.14 of 2009 under Annexure-2 by setting aside the engagement of opposite party No.4 and allowing the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Worker of Adalia Anganwadi Centre. 2.The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the C.D.P.O., Cuttack for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for Adalia Anganwadi Centre, the petitioner being a resident of village Adalia made necessary application for the said post. Following a due procedure of selection, the petitioner was selected and was issued with engagement order vide Annexure-1 dated 29.11.2008. Pursuant to such engagement order, the petitioner joined in the said post on the very same day, i.e. on 29.11.2008. The opposite party No.4 challenging such selection of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack and upon hearing the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack vide impugned order dated 27.7.2010 allowed the appeal by setting aside the engagement order issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that she is not a permanent resident of the service area of Adalia Anganwadi Centre and directed the C.D.P.O., Cuttack to finalize the selection of Anganwadi Worker from amongst the eligible candidates as per the merit list. 3.Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner relaying upon the guidelines of the Government of Orissa, Child and Welfare Department dated 2.7.2007 under Annexure-3 stated that as per clause-1 applications for selection of Volunteers to work as Anganwadi Workers will be invited for each villages/Anganwadi Centre area from women residing in the said village/Anganwadi Centre area. He contended that in view of the said guidelines, it is not required that one should be a permanent resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. On the contrary the scheme clearly postulates that one must be residing in the Anganwadi Centre area. He contended that irrespective of whether one is a permanent resident of the Anganwadi Centre area or not, if he/she is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area and is residing in any of the villages of the Anganwadi Centre area, is eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker as per the scheme. He contended that irrespective of whether one is a permanent resident of the Anganwadi Centre area or not, if he/she is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area and is residing in any of the villages of the Anganwadi Centre area, is eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker as per the scheme. He has also relied upon the resident certificate granted by the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack where it is specifically stated that the petitioner is ordinarily residing at Adalia, P.S. Sadar Tahasil, Cuttack in the district of Cuttack. Such certificate was granted in Misc. Case No.2601 of 2008 by the competent authority by following due enquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-4 series. Under Clause 12 of the R.I. report, it is stated that the applicant, namely, Sarojini Sahoo is residing in the house of Bhagyadhar Prusty on rental basis since more than last 15 years. Therefore, the authorities have not committed any illegalities in considering the application of the petitioner for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Adalia Anganwadi Centre. 4.The C.D.P.O., Cuttack, opposite party No.3 has filed counter affidavit stating that as per the guidelines issued by the Government, the candidates for selection of Anganwadi Worker should belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre and a resident certificate should be produced along with the application form for consideration of her application. It is further stated that since the petitioner submitted her resident certificate that she is a resident of village Adalia and secured highest mark, she was selected as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Adalia Anganwadi Centre. On the basis of the complaint lodged by opposite party No.4 by preferring appeal, the Sub-Collector, Cuttack got the matter enquired through the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack, who submitted a report stating that the petitioner was residing in the house of one Bhagyadhar Prusty on rental basis and presently, she is residing in the house of one Basanti Barik of village Adalia on rental basis. It is further stated that in the counter that since the candidature of the petitioner was considered on the strength of the resident certificate issued in her favour and the no objection was received from any quarter during the statutory period of inviting objection, the petitioner was issued with engagement order to work as Anganwadi Worker in Adalia Anganwadi Centre. It is further stated that in the counter that since the candidature of the petitioner was considered on the strength of the resident certificate issued in her favour and the no objection was received from any quarter during the statutory period of inviting objection, the petitioner was issued with engagement order to work as Anganwadi Worker in Adalia Anganwadi Centre. But on enquiry when it was found that she was residing on rental basis, her selection was set aside by the opposite party No.2 by the impugned order. 5.Opposite party No.4 in her counter affidavit reiterated the same facts and stated that since the petitioner does not belong to the Adalia Anganwadi Centre area, she is not entitled to get engagement order to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker. It is also stated that the word ‘residing’ never means that a person, who is residing on rental basis shall be eligible to apply for the said post and therefore, since the petitioner does not belong to the Anganwadi Centre area in question, she is not eligible to be engaged as such. 6.In the rejoinder to the counter filed by the opposite party No.3, the petitioner has categorically stated that the resident certificate, which has been granted in favour of the petitioner has not been cancelled and that apart, the guideline issued by the Government does not stipulate that one must be a permanent resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. Therefore, the engagement of the petitioner cannot be said to be in contravention of the aforesaid guideline. He further contended that the petitioner is residing in the said place for more than 15 years and the Tahasildar on enquiry has issued such certificate and the said residential certificate having not been cancelled, it has reached finality. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in the impugned order that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of village Adalia cannot be sustained. 7.Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his contentions, has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Rohit Chauhan v. Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee, Joint Entrance Examination- E & M-2000, University College of Engineering, Burala, District-Sambalpur, 2001 (1) OLR 305 and Jharana Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2005 (1) OLR 514 . 7.Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his contentions, has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Rohit Chauhan v. Chairman, Admission Sub-Committee, Joint Entrance Examination- E & M-2000, University College of Engineering, Burala, District-Sambalpur, 2001 (1) OLR 305 and Jharana Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2005 (1) OLR 514 . Referring to Rohit Chauhan (supra), he submitted that a similar question came up for consideration in the said judgment with regard to the construction of the word “ordinarily resides” for admission to Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical) and this Court analyzing the same, in paragraphs 12 and 16 held that if the certificate submitted is in the prescribed format, non-mention of the word “permanent resident” cannot be taken as a fact against the petitioner when it was certified by the Tahasildar that the petitioner ordinarily resides in Khurda district. Therefore, it follows that the petitioner has complied with the first part of the requirement, i.e. the candidate should be a resident of Orissa and allowed the student to participate in the selection process. 8.In Jharana Sahoo (supra), this Court has considered the guidelines issued for engagement of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks where in the advertisement, it was stipulated that the candidate should enclose the resident certificate issued by the competent authority that he/she is a resident of the concerned education district. The provisional selection was made but the subsequent condition that the candidate would be residing for more than twelve years in the Education District was challenged. This Court in the said judgment held that since the advertisement stipulated that a candidate should enclose a resident certificate issued by the competent authority that he/she is a resident of the concerned Education District, the stipulation made in the Govt. notification was quashed. 9.Perusal of the notification dated 20.12.2008 annexed as Annexure-A/4 to the counter filed by opposite party No.4, makes it clear that apart from other documents, under clause-3 it has been stated that the applicant has to submit the permanent resident certificate from the Tahasildar. When objection was raised by opposite party No.4, enquiry was caused and on enquiry it was found that the petitioner was residing on rental basis for more than 12 years in the house of one Bhagyadhar Prusty, but at the time of enquiry she has been shifted to the house of one Basanti Barik of village Adalia. When objection was raised by opposite party No.4, enquiry was caused and on enquiry it was found that the petitioner was residing on rental basis for more than 12 years in the house of one Bhagyadhar Prusty, but at the time of enquiry she has been shifted to the house of one Basanti Barik of village Adalia. Therefore, the petitioner having not satisfied the requirement of the advertisement under Annexure-A/4 regarding submission of permanent resident certificate as per clause (3) of the advertisement, she incurs disqualification from the very initiation of the submission of the application for engagement as Anganwadi Worker. On the other hand, the petitioner being a permanent resident of village Kulasarichuan under Kalapada R.I. Circle, her application could not have been considered for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Adalia Anganwadi Centre as she does not belong to the said area and the reliance placed on the judgments referred to supra has no application so as to extend the benefits in favour of the petitioner. 10.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner as she does not belong to Adalia Anganwadi Centre area. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.