Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 692 (ORI)

SUJATA ROUT v. STATE OF ORISSA

2018-07-26

S.N.PRASAD

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.N.Prasad, J. - This writ petition is for questioning the order of appointment made in favour of the opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker in Nagena Anganwadi Centre, Gandia Block in the district of Dhenkanal. 2. Brief facts of the case is that pursuant to the notice dated 30.10.2002 inviting application for consideration of candidatures for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Nagena Anganwadi Centre, the petitioner, the opposite party no.5 and others participated in the selection process. The selection process has commenced on the basis of the guideline dated 30.11.1998. Procedure for selection has been provided therein along with eligibility conditions. The procedure of selection has been reflected at para-8 of the aforesaid guideline which is being quoted herein below: "Candidates who have been included in the panel mentioned above, will be called for an interview and marks will be awarded to them in the following manner. (a) Percentage of marks obtained in the Matriculation examination or percentage of marks obtained in the written test for non-matriculates as may be relevant. (b) 3 marks if the candidate is intermediate or equivalent to his higher qualification. (c) 5 marks if the candidate belongs to SC and ST category. (d) 3 marks if she is married and additional 3 marks if dissolved by a court decree (i.e. where marriage has been dissolved by a court degree) provided she resides in village. (e) Marks to be awarded for experience out of a maximum 5. The experience relevant for this purpose will be experience in any area of the duties of Anganwadi worker acquired under a registered Voluntary Organization funded by State/Central Govt. for this purpose. (f) Marks obtained in the interview which will be out of maximum of 10 marks. Note Marks awarded to candidate in accordance with (a) to (e) shall be notified prior to holding interview. (g) The list of the candidates interviewed will be serially arranged in order of the total of marks obtained under para 8-a to 8-f above and will form the basis for selection. Note Marks awarded to candidate in accordance with (a) to (e) shall be notified prior to holding interview. (g) The list of the candidates interviewed will be serially arranged in order of the total of marks obtained under para 8-a to 8-f above and will form the basis for selection. It is evident from the aforesaid guideline that selection is to be made on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in the matriculation examination or percentage of marks obtained in the written test for non-matriculates as may be relevant, three marks if the candidate is intermediate or equivalent to her higher qualification, 5 marks if the candidate belongs to SC and ST category, 3 marks if she is marriage and additional 3 marks if a widow or a divorce (i.e. where marriage has been dissolved by a Court decree) provided she resides in village, marks to be awarded for experience out of a maximum 5, the experience relevant for this purpose will be experience in any area of the duties of Anganwadi worker acquired under a registered Voluntary Organization funded by State/Central Govt. for this purpose, marks obtained in the interview which will be out of maximum of 10 marks. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has submitted her application along with experience certificate showing her experience worked in Nabasi Seva Sansada as under Annexure-3. The selection committee has considered the candidature of one and the other candidates and on scrutiny the candidature of the petitioner as also opposite party no.5 has been found to be proper, accordingly they have been directed to face interview which was held on 3.3.2003. The petitioner as well as the opposite party no.5 has been awarded marks as 51.33 and 44.14 respectively prior to the interview. The petitioner as well as the opposite party no.5 has been awarded marks as 51.33 and 44.14 respectively prior to the interview. The petitioner has not been awarded any marks with respect to experience since the document submitted by her is having no experience since the said certificate is not acceptable in absence of registration number who has issued the said certificate since no such centre is available at Kandhabola, Kamakhyanagar but the interview Board after assessing the marks awarded 1.4 marks and 8.8 marks in favour of the petitioner and opposite party no.5 respectively, thereafter the petitioner secured 52.73 marks and opposite party no.5 as 52.94 marks in total, accordingly on the basis of the position in total marks, opposite party no.5 has been selected which has been questioned by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that experience certificate under Annexure-3 has been obtained by the petitioner which was registered under the Societies Registration Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the certificate annexed to the rejoinder affidavit under Annexure-6 issued by the Additional Registrar of Societies, Dhenkanal submits that the ground taken in not awarding marks under the experience head cannot be said to justified one for the reason that the aforesaid N.G.O. has been registered under the Societies Registration Act and if the authorities would have asked the aforesaid document, the petitioner would have submitted the same, hence illegality has been committed by the authority. Secondly, the petitioner challenged the selection on the ground that the selection has been done by the interview Board by awarding 8.8 marks in favour of the opposite party no.5 where as the petitioner has been awarded only 1.4 marks, hence selection of the opposite party no.5 is unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no condition in the guideline to ask the candidates to participate in the interview and as such the same is unjustified. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no condition in the guideline to ask the candidates to participate in the interview and as such the same is unjustified. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State as well as opposite party no.5 submit that there is no illegality committed in selecting the opposite party no.5 for the reason that while assessing the marks of the petitioner as well as the opposite party no.5, the opposite party no.5 has been shown to be more meritorious on the basis of the interview and accordingly she has got higher marks in comparison to the petitioner, refuting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that experience marks ought to have been awarded by the selection committee on the basis of the experience in favour of the petitioner, they submit that it was the duty of the petitioner to furnish complete documents and since experience certificate is to be taken for awarding extra marks and if the complete document is not available, the selection committee has taken decision on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in written examination and interview, hence the selection committee has not committed any illegality. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the N.G.O. has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, but according to them, the said document ought to have been produced by the petitioner and in absence thereof the selection committee cannot be alleged of any manipulation and commission of any unfairness on their part as has been alleged by the petitioner, in response to that learned counsel for the opposite party-State as also opposite party no.5 submit that on the basis of the guideline dated 30.11.1998, the opposite party no.5 has been selected by the selection committee. In view thereof, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not to be accepted. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the selection process has been initiated in terms of the guideline dated 30.11.1998 and the selection process has been adopted on the basis of marks obtained in matriculation certificate, experience as also interview. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident that the selection process has been initiated in terms of the guideline dated 30.11.1998 and the selection process has been adopted on the basis of marks obtained in matriculation certificate, experience as also interview. So far as the marks related to educational qualification is concerned, the petitioner has been awarded more marks in comparison to opposite party no.5, but he has not been given marks under the experience head since the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner is having no registration number and as such the selection committee has gone into its propriety. According to my view, that if there is a provision in the guideline, on the basis of possessing experience certificate, the aforesaid certificate must be legally valid and true in the eye of law. The experience certificate has been produced in support of the performance of work under the N.G.O. and if the N.G.O. is having no registration number, the experience certificate cannot be said to for the purpose for giving extra marks giving privilege over the other candidates. The petitioner contends that the N.G.O. has been registered under the Societies Registration Act but it is admitted position that Annexure-3 is having no registration number and it is settled that the selection committee is suppose to look into the document which is being produced by the candidate before it and if the said document at the time of submission of application has not been produced and subsequently it is sought to be produced, and if the selection is concluded, it cannot be said that the selection has committed any illegality. 6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the guideline dated 30.11.1998 no provision has been made to conduct interview, but as would before evident from condition no.8-f of the guideline dated 30.11.1998 there is a provision to ask the candidates to appear in the interview, hence the contention is contrary to the aforesaid guideline, as such the same is rejected. 7. 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.5 has been favoured by giving 8.8 marks in the interview while the petitioner has been given 1.4 marks, according to my considered view, when the candidates are being asked to participate in the interview board, it is subjective satisfaction of one or the other members sitting in the interview Board to award the marks after assessing the performance of candidates. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot say that excess marks as has been allotted out of the maximum marks of 10, it can be said that the authority has shown any favour unless allegation of any malafide is alleged, but after going to the entire pleadings no allegation of malafide has been alleged. 8. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to pass order in favour of her. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed