Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 521 (ORI)

Manasi Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2014-08-22

AMITAVA ROY, B.R.SARANGI

body2014
Order 22.08.2014 - Heard Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Ch. Mohanty, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. The facts, in brief, necessary for the present adjudication, are that a process was initiated for appointment of Anganwadi worker in respect of Keutagarh Anganwadi centre under Kendrapara Block, in which amongst others, the appellant and respondent No. 5 did participate. After the completion of the process, the appellant was selected for appointment. Respondent No. 5 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2590 of 2010 assailing her selection. This Court by order dated 09.03.2011 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara to consider and dispose of the representation in the meanwhile submitted by respondent No. 5. On being queried by us, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the said representation was rejected by the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, but the respondent No. 5 did not challenge the said decision. Be that as it may, respondent No. 5 initiated a second round of litigation in W.P. (C) No. 2216 of 2013 praying for issuance of appropriate writ to restrain the appointment of the appellant to the above mentioned post essential on the ground that in calculating the marks awarded to the candidates correct norms had not been applied. Learned Single Judge by the order impugned in the instant appeal proceeded on the premise that as in the meanwhile delay had occurred, fresh process ought to be initiated and issued direction to that effect. The appellant being aggrieved, filed an application for review, pleading inter alia, that in the earlier process she had been selected and has been awaiting appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker in respect of Keutagarh Anganwadi centre under Kendrapara block. The review petition has since been rejected by order dated 06.05.2013. Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the supposition on which the learned Single Judge has directed fresh process to be initiated is factually incorrect and that appropriate direction ought to be issued in the instant appeal to the official respondents to provide the appellant appointment to the above post. Mr. S.Ch. Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the supposition on which the learned Single Judge has directed fresh process to be initiated is factually incorrect and that appropriate direction ought to be issued in the instant appeal to the official respondents to provide the appellant appointment to the above post. Mr. S.Ch. Mohanty, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has argued that the instant appeal is not maintainable in law as the same has not been preferred against the order dated 06.05.2013 rejecting the review petition (RVWPET No. 54 of 2013) filed by the appellant. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials in full, we are of the view that the appeal ought to be allowed. It is not disputed before us and is otherwise borne out by the recorded facts that following due selection, the appellant had been selected for appointment to the above mentioned post and that she could not get appointment in view of the intervening writ proceeding at the instance of respondent No. 5. We are of the unhesitant opinion that the factor of delay taken note of by the learned Single Judge to direct initiation of fresh process for appointment to the above post was uncalled for in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant having been duly selected for appointment to the post, the process relatable thereto cannot be rendered nugatory by the successive challenges as made in the present facts and circumstances by respondent No. 5 on untenable grounds. The appeal, thus, is allowed. The orders dated 01.02.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2216 of 2013 and dated 06.05.2013 in RVWPET No. 54 of 2013 are set aside. The official respondents are hereby directed to take necessary follow up steps in the matter of appointment of the appellant as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Keutagarh Anganwadi centre under Kendrapara Block as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed.