Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 243 (ORI)

Jasobanti Pradhan v. Addl. D. M. , Bargarh

2015-04-09

S.N.PRASAD

body2015
ORDER : Heard. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.15 of 2010 by which the order of Addl. District Magistrate has passed the order of disengagement of the petitioner in A.W.W. Appeal No. 94 of 2010 has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 along with other had participated in the selection process for the engagement of Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner being the local resident of the area where the centre is situated has been selected on the ground that the petitioner has produced along with application form the residential certificate issued by the Additional Tahasildar of the concerned district in a quasi judicial proceeding. The opposite party no.4 being not declared successful has made a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate of the concerned district challenging the engagement of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the local area where the centre is situated as because the name of the father of the petitioner does not find place in the survey report. The A.D.M. concerned has passed an order and relying upon the survey report wherein the name of the father of the petitioner does not find place and has passed an order of disengagement of the petitioner. On the basis of the order passed by the A.D.M. the petitioner was disengaged from the work. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of disengagement order has preferred an appeal before the Collector who confirmed the order of the A.D.M. and accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the Collector has given unnecessary emphasis upon the survey report wherein the name of the father of the petitioner does not find mention and not given any emphasis upon the residential certificate which was issued by the competent authority under the statute in a quasi judicial proceeding being Misc. Case No.5487 dated 5.12.2009. Further it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the survey report the name of father of the petitioner does not find place it is due to the reason the father of the petitioner has died way back in the year 1994 but it does not mean that the nativity of the petitioner has changed. Further it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the survey report the name of father of the petitioner does not find place it is due to the reason the father of the petitioner has died way back in the year 1994 but it does not mean that the nativity of the petitioner has changed. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that the order does not suffer from any infirmity as there is a concurrent finding from the two authorities based upon the documents the authority has come to the conclusion on the basis of the survey report wherein the name of the father of the petitioner does not find place. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has also contested the case and has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order on the ground that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the opposite party no.4 and also the petitioner is not the resident of the local area where the centre is situated. Both the authorities after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has passed a just and proper manner. Heard the parties at length and perused the documents on record. The fact which is not in dispute is that the petitioner being a candidate for the purpose of engagement of Anganwadi Worker on the ground of being a resident of the area where the centre is situated and to that effect she has produced residential certificate issued by the competent authority as provided under the statute in a quasi judicial proceeding being Misc. Case No.5487 dated 5.12.2009 and on the basis of which the petitioner was engaged. The engagement order of the petitioner has been challenged by the opposite party no.4 who was declared to be unsuccessful in the selection process on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the local area where the centre is situated. In support of such contention learned counsel for the petitioner has produced survey report wherein the name of the father of the petitioner does not find place rather the name of the elder brother of the father of the petitioner has been mentioned and thus on this ground the nativity of the petitioner has not been accepted. In support of such contention learned counsel for the petitioner has produced survey report wherein the name of the father of the petitioner does not find place rather the name of the elder brother of the father of the petitioner has been mentioned and thus on this ground the nativity of the petitioner has not been accepted. The authorities have passed an order have given much emphasis upon the survey report completely ignored the residential certificate issued by the competent authority under the power conferred upon the authorities under the statutory provision. The moment the residential certificate has been issued by the competent authority that has not been questioned or challenged and is still in operation as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4. The authorities have adjudicated the issue and have given finding not relying upon the said residential certificate. After verifying its genuineness and existence as on the date of consideration of the matter but the reliance has been given by the authorities on the survey report. In that view of the matter I find that the order passed by the appellate authority suffers from infirmity since the authorities have adjudicated the issue without giving any finding upon the residential certificate since the petitioner s case before the A.D.M. was that he was selected on the basis of the residential certificate issued by the competent authority and the same has not been questioned nether by the authority nor by the opposite party no.4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party-State as well as counsel for opposite party no.4 that in the matter of engagement of Anganwadi Worker it is the survey report which is to be given consideration and not the residential certificate because residential certificate is being issued for the purpose of revenue matters. The Collector will adjudicate the issue by corroborating the fact that the petitioner is actually residing in the area where the centre is situated by making scrutiny of survey report with the residential certificate and if it is found that the parties are residing in the said local area where the centre is situated on the basis of valid proof in this regard then an order shall be passed. In that view of the matter it needs for reconsideration for the Collector of the concerned district. The matter is remitted before the Collector to adjudicate upon the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and opposite party no.4 within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that while deciding the issue the Collector will be taken into consideration the documents already on record and no further documents will be entertained by the Collector. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its mind on the merits of this case.