Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 870 (ORI)

GOLAP KUMARI PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA

2014-12-15

A.K.RATH, AMITAVA ROY

body2014
JUDGMENT : The subject matter of assailment is the judgment/order dated 30.9.2014 disposing W.P.(C) No.16878 of 2014. Thereby the challenge laid by the present appellant against the order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam in M.C. Appeal No.07/2013, in W.P.(C) No.16878 of 2014 has been negated. 2. We have heard Mr A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P.K.. Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the present adjudication are that the present appellant and respondent no.5 along with others did respond to the advertisement No.1122 dated 26.9.2012 of the CDPO, Polasara, for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker for Khairachhata Anganwadi Centre. The last date for submission of application along with documents was thereby fixed on 11.10.2012. One of the documents, admittedly, was a certificate of residence of the applicant in village, Khairachhata. It is a matter of record that by 11.10.2012, the appellant though had submitted a certificate of residence issued by the jurisdictional Sarpanch, she gave an undertaking to produce such certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar by 16.10.2012. However, though she failed to produce the said certificate, her candidature was not rejected and it was eventually on 20.10.2012 that she could furnish her certificate of residence issued by Tahasildar, Polasara, before the CDPO, Polasara, who was in charge of the process. Eventually, she was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Khairachhata Anganwadi Centre. 4. Being aggrieved, the present respondent no.5 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12155 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.6.2013 requiring her to pursue the appeal filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam. In the said appeal registered as M.C. Appeal No.07/13, the CDPO, Polasara, submitted his para wise comments in which it was admitted that the last date for submission of applications in response to the advertisement involved was 11.10.2012 and that incidentally the date of scrutiny was also on the same date. The para wise comments also disclosed that the appellant could not produce her certificate of residence issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara, by that date and took time therefor and did so eventually on 20.10.2012. 5. Learned Addl. The para wise comments also disclosed that the appellant could not produce her certificate of residence issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara, by that date and took time therefor and did so eventually on 20.10.2012. 5. Learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam by order dated 11.8.2014 allowed the appeal of the present respondent no.5 holding that the CDPO, Polasara, had erred in extending the date for submission of certificate of residence by the appellant beyond 11.10.2012. It was held that as the appellant’s application was not accompanied by the requisite documents on the last date i.e. 11.10.2012, the same ought to have been rejected and other valid applications ought to have been taken into consideration for final selection. By this order, learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam thus set aside the selection of the appellant by adjudging the same to be void and remanded the matter to the Selection Committee to take a decision on the basis of the remaining valid applications for the post. 6. Situated thus, the appellant sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by instituting W.P.(C) No.16878 of 2014 to set at naught the determination of the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam. Respondent no.5 also approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17177 of 2014 seeking direction to the official opp. party for disengagement of the appellant and for her appointment to the post involved. By the judgment/order impugned in the instant appeal, the appellant’s challenge has been rejected and the CDPO, Polasara has been directed to comply with the order dated 11.8.2014 of the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, and to conclude the process of selection within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the verdict. 7. Mr A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as the appeal filed by respondent no.5 before the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, was barred by time, the order dated 11.8.2014 is nonest. Drawing the attention of this Court to the advertisement, the learned counsel has emphatically argued that the certificate of residence issued by the concerned Sarpanch and filed by the appellant on 11.10.2012 was in full compliance of the stipulation to the effect and thus she had been rightly appointed to the post. Drawing the attention of this Court to the advertisement, the learned counsel has emphatically argued that the certificate of residence issued by the concerned Sarpanch and filed by the appellant on 11.10.2012 was in full compliance of the stipulation to the effect and thus she had been rightly appointed to the post. The learned counsel has insisted that the certificate of residence issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara, had been furnished by the appellant as sought for by the CDPO, Polasara, and that the same being redundant in terms of the relevant stipulation of the advertisement, she could not have been adjudged to be disqualified for her failure to produce the same by 11.10.2012. 8. Mr Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-respondent has submitted that a combined reading of clause 3 and 10 of the advertisement would make it clear that the certificate of residence was essentially to be issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara, and thus on the failure of the appellant to produce the said document in time, she has been rightly held to be disqualified by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel urged that in terms of Clause 3, the certificate of residence ought to have been to the effect that the holder thereof was a resident of Khairachhata during the six months preceding the issuance thereof. 9. We have considered the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we have also extended our consideration to the rival arguments. To start with, it is to be noted that M.C. Appeal No.07/2013 had been disposed of in compliance with the order dated 24.6.2013 passed in W.P. (C) No.12155 of 2013. In that view of the matter, the plea that the appeal was barred by time does not commend for acceptance. 10. Admittedly, the appellant had not along with her application, submitted the certificate of residence issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara, by the last date i.e. 11.10.2012. Her certificate of residence had by then been issued by the concerned Sarpanch. In that view of the matter, the plea that the appeal was barred by time does not commend for acceptance. 10. Admittedly, the appellant had not along with her application, submitted the certificate of residence issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara, by the last date i.e. 11.10.2012. Her certificate of residence had by then been issued by the concerned Sarpanch. A conjoint reading of Clause 3 and 10 of the advertisement makes it clear that the certificate of residence as a valid proof of the place of residence of a candidate was to be issued by the Tahasildar, Polasra, certifying amongst others that the candidate concerned had been a resident of the village involved for a period of six months prior to the date of issuance thereof. This certificate was furnished by the appellant on 20.10.2012 much after the last date i.e. 11.10.2012. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to draw our attention to any provision permitting the CDPO, Polasara, to extend the date fixed by the advertisement i.e. 11.10.2012 to enable a participating candidate to furnish an essential document bearing on her eligibility. We are of the view that in a public participatory process of the kind involved, no such power is comprehended unless expressly provided and thus the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, was right in holding that the appellant’s application was not valid in absence of the certificate of residence issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara. The decision to the effect that her selection was void, thus, is unassailable. As it is, had the certificate issued by the concerned Sarpanch qua the appellant been sufficient, there would have been no insistence for another document issued by the Tahasildar, Polasara. Irrefutably, therefore, the appellant’s application as on 11.12.2012 was complete in absence of a vital document bearing on her eligibility. 11. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the finding recorded therein. Neither the order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam, nor the decision of the learned Single Judge thus warrants interference in the instant appeal. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.