Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 221 (ORI)

Ajodya Jena v. Collector, Bhadrak

2015-04-02

S.N.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. Brief facts of the case as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the selection committee has appointed private respondent (opposite party no.4) ignoring the case of the petitioner while the petitioner was selected by majority of Mahila Sabha to be appointed as Anganwadi Helper in Balipur Anganwadi Centre but the appellate authority without verifying the fact that Mahila Sabha in majority has selected the petitioner, has given a finding holding that appointment of the opposite party no.4 suffers from no infirmity. Grounds taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate order is criptic and without adjudicating the issue which has been raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority regarding non-consideration of the report of the Mahila Sabha. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-State submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority suffers from no infirmity and the appellate authority after perusing the record that selection of the opposite party no.4 as Anganwadi Helper has been made after taking due process of procedure and on the basis of the decision taken by the Mahila Sabha which was held on 22.4.2006, the committee recommended selection of opposite party no.4 as Anganwadi Helper. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 submitted that opposite party no.4 has been selected in accordance with the procedure and in majority of the Mahila Sabha and this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the appellate authority and the order passed by the appellate authority suffers no infirmity. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, non-selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper has been challenged before the appellate authority. It is admitted position that the petitioner has submitted her application for candidature in pursuance of the notice inviting applications which has been issued in terms of the advertisement issued by the State of Orissa dated 24.11.1997 prescribing certain terms and conditions and procedure for selection. Procedure of selection is that the helper of Anganwadi Centre shall be selection by Mahila Sabha in a open meeting and the selection will be on the basis of majority of the decision of the Mahila Sabha. Procedure of selection is that the helper of Anganwadi Centre shall be selection by Mahila Sabha in a open meeting and the selection will be on the basis of majority of the decision of the Mahila Sabha. Candidate of the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 along with others were placed before the Mahila Sabha and the Mahila Sabha has recommended name of the opposite party no.4 on the basis of which selection of opposite party no.4 was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged engagement of the opposite party no.4 on the ground that Mahila Sabha in majority, has recommended the name of the petitioner, this aspect of the matter has specifically argued before the appellate authority but the appellate authority has not gone into this aspect of the matter and as such the order passed by the appellate authority is criptic and without adjudicating the main issue raised by the petitioner. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding resolution and minutes of the meeting of the Mahila Sabha wherein petitioner has been selected by the majority of the Mahila Sabha, this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the appellate authority. After going through the order passed by the appellate authority I find that the appellate authority has gone into the fact and procedure laid down in the guideline dated 24.11.1997 which provides procedure of selection on the basis of majority of members of the Mahila Sabha. The appellate authority after getting verified from the report of the C.D.P.O. regarding holding of Mahila Sabha and after being satisfied that the Mahila Sabha has resolved to select opposite party no.4 as Anganwadi Heler and thereafter the appellate authority has passed order holding that there is no infirmity in the selection of the opposite party no.4. Admittedly, Anganwadi Helper is not holding a civil post and as such services of the Anganwadi Helper cannot be governed under the service law since service law has not been formulated for them, hence it is worth to refer the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & others-vs-Ameerbi and others reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 wherein at paragraphs 20 and 29 it has been held, which is being quoted herein below: “ Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme exists. We do not think that the said decision has any application in the instant case. “Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, in our opinion, would not render the incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our attention has not been drawn to any rule or regulation governing the mode of their recruitment. Some statements in this behalf have been made by the interveners but for the reasons stated hereinbefore, we cannot enter thereinto. A distinction must be made about a post created by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-a-vis cases of this nature who are sui generis. Terms and conditions of services of an employee may be referable to acts of appropriate legislature. The matter may also come within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India as proviso appended thereto confers power upon the President or the Governor of a State or other authority, who may be delegated with such power, to make rules during the interregnum.” On the basis of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court reported above, no interference is warranted because there is no infirmity on the order passed by this Court rather the appellate authority has passed order which is based upon the relevant records. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.