Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1491 (ORI)

Gitanjali Sahoo v. State of Odisha

2017-12-20

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. Heard Shri B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4-State. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel for the private opposite party no. 5, there is no appearance when the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the non-consideration of opposite party no. 5 in the post of Anganwadi worker and the order of dismissal of appeal at the instance of the petitioner vide Annexure-9. 3. Challenging the impugned actions vide Annexure 6 and 9, Shri Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court to the clause contained in the advertisement appearing at page-11 of the brief, submitted that for the consideration of a person for the post of Anganwadi worker, the requirement is one must be a permanent resident of the area belonged the Anganwadi Centre in question. Further, taking this Court to the joint enquiry conducted involving the resident-ship of the petitioner, particularly taking to this Court to the joint enquiry report at page-20 and 21 of the brief, Shri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the fact finding involving the joint enquiry report at Annexure- 4 establishing the petitioner has a house within the jurisdiction of Balabhadrapur Anganawadi Centre-2, the Anganawadi Centre involved herein and further taking this Court to the Resident Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner, Shri Nayak contended that for the materials available establishing that the petitioner is a resident of the Anganawadi Centre involved, the consideration of the authority at the first instance while considering the candidature of the different persons as well as the order of the appellate authority went contrary to the materials available on record. Referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Babita Pattanayk vs. State of Orissa and Others, 2014 (1) OLR 427 , Shri Nayak, learned counsel also taking this Court to the discussions in the said decisions and the observations therein, submitted that the petitioner has the support of the case referred to hereinabove. It is under the circumstances, Shri Nayak, learned counsel prayed for interference of this Court in the impugned actions at Annexure-6 and 9 and thereby directing for appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in the Anganawadi Centre involved herein. 4. It is under the circumstances, Shri Nayak, learned counsel prayed for interference of this Court in the impugned actions at Annexure-6 and 9 and thereby directing for appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in the Anganawadi Centre involved herein. 4. On the other hand, Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate again taking this Court to the requirement in the advertisement, for the fact finding report involving the joint enquiry report at Annexure-4 and further for the consideration of the competent authority at page-24 of the brief and further for the discussions with regard to the residence of the petitioner by the appellate authority, submitted that the decision vide Annexure-5, 6 and 9 not only remained in consonance with the materials available on record but also taking into consideration the specific requirement in the advertisement. In the circumstances, Shri Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned appellate order or in the decision of the competent authority and thus submitted that there is no scope for interference with the impugned actions/ orders. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, following the contentions attached in the advertisement the requirement for consideration of the candidature of a person for the post of Anganawadi worker is a person must be a permanent resident of the area of which particular Anganawadi Centre belongs. Now, looking to the joint enquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, Nuagaon and CDPO, Nuagaon, this Court finds, the enquiry report reveals the following observations :- “On verification of record it is found that Plot No. 414/643 vide Khata No. 166/66 Ac. 0.02 kisam gharabari stands recorded in the name of Smt. Gitanjali Sahoo W/o Debaraj Sahoo. As per notification No. 185 dated 01.08.2011 the above house is in the jurisdiction of Balabhadrapur Anganawadi Centre-2. After enquiry and spot verification it is found that there were no kitchen or bed in the above house and the house is not suitable for living. It is also ascertained that Smt. Gitanjali Sahoo is not staying in the house on Plot No. 414/643. She is actually staying in her father-in-laws house over Plot No. 365 khata no. 43 of village-Balabhadrapur near Bhagabatjew gramakothaghara which is situated in ward No. 4. As per the above notification this house is not in the jurisdiction of Balabhadrapur Anganawadi Centre-2.” 6. She is actually staying in her father-in-laws house over Plot No. 365 khata no. 43 of village-Balabhadrapur near Bhagabatjew gramakothaghara which is situated in ward No. 4. As per the above notification this house is not in the jurisdiction of Balabhadrapur Anganawadi Centre-2.” 6. Reading of the aforesaid observations made in the joint enquiry report, this Court finds no doubt the fact finding report observing that even though the petitioner has a residence in the jurisdiction of Balabhadrapur Anganawadi Centre-2 but she is residing in the house at Plot No. 414/643 and there is a clear finding that the resident of the petitioner is not coming within the jurisdiction of the Anganawadi Centre. It is taking this aspect into consideration the competent authority, as appears in Annexure-5, observed that the petitioner does not belong to the Anganawadi Centre area. As a consequence, appointment order vide Annexure-6 was issued in favour of opposite party no. 5. Considering the development through the appeal at the instance of the petitioner, this Court finds, for the aforesaid materials establishing the petitioner’s resident somewhere else the appellate authority found no scope for interfering in the order of the original authority involving the appointment of opposite party no. 5 and, therefore, this Court observes, there is right decision by the appellate authority. So far as the petitioner’s claim based on Resident Certificate vide Annexure-1 is concerned, the Resident Certificate is normally granted under the provisions of Miscellaneous Certificate rules and the investigation involving such proceeding is much lower than the level of investigation made herein for appointment of a person as Anganawadi worker. For the fact finding report in the joint enquiry report conducted by the responsible officers, this Court finds, the Resident Certificate cannot prevail over such observations in joint enquiry report. There is also no material forthcoming denying the residing of the petitioner at a different plot at the relevant point of time. Further, considering the purpose behind engagement of Anganwadi worker requiring engagement of a person of the locality being given importance, this Court observes, engagement of outsiders cannot be desired. Considering the decision cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioner, finding difference in the facts situation involving the case at hand and the case decided therein, this Court finds the decision relied on has no application to the case at hand. 7. Considering the decision cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioner, finding difference in the facts situation involving the case at hand and the case decided therein, this Court finds the decision relied on has no application to the case at hand. 7. For the observations made herein above and for the appellate authority’s order based on a clear finding in the enquiry report, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in the appellate order requiring this Court to interfere with the same in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.