Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1131 (ORI)

Sandhyarani Dash v. State of Odisha

2016-11-22

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 19.8.2016 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no. 2, in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2016, vide Annexure-6. By the said order, opposite party no. 2 set aside the selection of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Gandakura Anganwadi Centre and directed to issue the order of engagement in favour of opposite party no. 4. 2. The short facts of the case of the petitioner are that pursuant to the order dated 24.9.2007 of the Child Development Project Officer, Bonth, opposite party no. 3, the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Gandakura Anganwadi Centre. She joined in the said post. Assailing her appointment, opposite party no.4 filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 7800 of 2009 before this Court. By order dated 12.5.2010, this Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak highlighting her grievance. This Court directed the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak to dispose of the representation after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Thereafter, opposite party no. 4 filed a representation before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak. After hearing the parties, the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak rejected the representation of the opposite party no. 4 on 23.7.2010 and upheld the appointment of the petitioner. Against the said order, opposite party no.4 filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 23207 of 2010 before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the Collector and others, it was stated that there was overwriting in the resolution. The said overwriting was due to mistake in spelling of the name of the petitioner. The opposite party no.4 was found absent in the Mahila Sabha and did not sign the resolution. The name of opposite party no. 5 was not suggested by the members present. No complaint was received by any member of the Mahila Sabha regarding overwriting the name of the petitioner. By order dated 2.6.2016, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no. 2, to conduct an enquiry regarding manipulation and fix accountability on the members of the selection committee with regard to manipulation in the minutes of the proceeding and take action against the erring officials. Thereafter, the Collector issued notice to the parties. 2, to conduct an enquiry regarding manipulation and fix accountability on the members of the selection committee with regard to manipulation in the minutes of the proceeding and take action against the erring officials. Thereafter, the Collector issued notice to the parties. By order dated 19.8.2016, the Collector directed to disengage the petitioner and appoint opposite party no. 4. With this factual scenario, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4. 4. Mr. Guru, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no material on record to come to a finding that the proceeding of the Mahila Sabha was tampered with at the behest of the petitioner. She had no role to play. Number of members were present in the Mahila Sabha. The resolution book was in the custody of the C.D.P.O. Further, opposite party no. 4 was not present in the Mahila Sabha nor her name was recommended. 5. Miss. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that there was tampering in the proceeding of the Mahila Sabha. Some portions of the original proceeding had been waived out by white fluid and the name of the petitioner had been inserted subsequently without any initial in different ink and handwriting. In view of the same, the opposite party no. 3 has rightly set aside the selection of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4, supports the stand of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel. He contended that the opposite party no. 4 is a widow. She is a destitute woman. After the selection of the petitioner was set aside, opposite party no. 4 was appointed. 7. By order dated 24.10.2016, this Court directed the learned counsel for the State to produce the records relating to Mahila Sabha as well as proceedings of the Collector. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has produced the register along with the proceeding of the Mahila Sabha. On a cursory perusal of the proceeding dated 22.9.2007 of the Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Gandakura Anganwadi Centre, it is evident that some portions of the original proceeding have been erased by white fluid without any initial. Standing Counsel has produced the register along with the proceeding of the Mahila Sabha. On a cursory perusal of the proceeding dated 22.9.2007 of the Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Gandakura Anganwadi Centre, it is evident that some portions of the original proceeding have been erased by white fluid without any initial. In the bottom portion of the proceeding, it is stated that the petitioner has been selected unanimously. The same has been written in a different ink and handwriting. Overwriting has been made in the proceeding. In fact, the Collector came to a definite finding with regard to tampering of proceeding of the Mahila Sabha. In view of the same, the Collector is justified in setting aside the engagement of the petitioner. 8. The next question arises as to whether the opposite party no. 4 can be engaged in the post of Anganwadi Helper. Mahila Sabha has not recommended the name of the petitioner. Thus the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no. 2, is not justified in directing the C.D.P.O., Bonth, opposite party no. 3, to engage the opposite party no. 4. The proceeding of the Mahila Sabha reveals that apart from opposite party no. 4, there is another widow, namely, Basanti Jena who belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thus it will not be proper to direct engagement of the opposite party no. 4 in the post without recommendation of the Mahila Sabha in respect of other candidates. In view of the same, this Court directs the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no. 2, to hold Mahila Sabha by any other officer than the C.D.P.O., Bonth, opposite party no. 3, on a particular date and consider the names of other candidates barring the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Helper. The aforesaid order has been passed keeping in view the fact that the Collector, Bhadrak, opposite party no. 2 directed the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak to draw departmental proceeding against the erring officials involved in the manipulation of the record relating to selection/engagement of Anganwadi Helper. 9. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to hand over the records of the proceedings of the Mahila Sabha to the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak to comply with the order of the Collector, Bhadrak. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.