Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 562 (ORI)

Geeta Rani Patro v. Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar

2019-09-05

B.R.SARANGI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of this writ application, seeks to challenge the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2008 under Annexure-5, whereby the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar, while allowing the appeal preferred by opposite party no. 3, has set aside her selection/engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre under Jagannathprasad Block. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Jagannathprasad-opposite party no. 2, issued an advertisement on 29.11.2007 inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre under Jagannathprasad Block in the district of Ganjam. In response thereto, the petitioner, opposite party no. 3, one Rasmita Kumari Pattnaik and Sarojini Samudra submitted their applications. The selection committee did not consider the case of opposite party no. 3, as she was permanent resident of Jagannathprasad Similarly, the case of Sarojini Samudra was not considered as she was staying at Jagannathprasad with her family and, as such, she was an applicant for Anganwadi Worker in Jagannath Prasad (A) and Jagannath Prasad (D) centre. Further, the application of Rasmita Kumari Pattnaik was also rejected as she was working as a coordinator in SSA in Jagannath Prasad Block. As the petitioner is residing in village Dimiripalli, which comes within the Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre area, she was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker and was issued with an engagement order on 16.06.2008. Consequentially, she joined and continued to discharge her duty as an Anganwadi Worker. 2.1. Challenging the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, opposite party no. 3 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar-opposite party no. 1, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2008, stating inter alia that without verification of relevant documents of the candidates and without conducting any interview, opposite party no. 2 hurriedly selected the petitioner. Pursuant to notice, the petitioner appeared and filed reply stating inter alia that she is a permanent resident of village Dimiripalli, which comes under survey area of Kiryadhar Anganwadi Centre, whereas other candidates, including opposite party no. 3, do not belong to any village coming under Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre area. As such, the selection committee, after verification of the records and having satisfied that the petitioner belonged to the centre area, selected her and accordingly opposite party no. 2 issued an engagement order in her favour. 3, do not belong to any village coming under Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre area. As such, the selection committee, after verification of the records and having satisfied that the petitioner belonged to the centre area, selected her and accordingly opposite party no. 2 issued an engagement order in her favour. Thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in issuing engagement order in her favour. But the Sub-Collector, without any application of mind, vide order dated 23.12.2009, cancelled such selection and engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2008. Hence this application. 3. Mr. G.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner belonged to village Dimiripalli, which comes within Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre area, the selection committee, after duly examining the residential status of the petitioner and having satisfied that she is residing within the Anganwadi Centre area, selected the petitioner for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre. Though Sarojini Samudra, another applicant, was staying at Jagannath Prasad with her family, she had applied for Anganwadi Worker in respect of Jagannath Prasad (A) and Jagannath Prasad (D) centres and, as such, pursuant to the residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Buguda, vide M.C. No. 3128 of 2003, her application was rejected. As the other applicant, namely, Rasmita Kumari Pattnaik was working as a Coordinator in S.S.A. under Jagannath Prasad Block, her application was rejected. So far as opposite party no. 3-Radhamani Dei is concerned, she being a resident of village Jagannath Prasad, which does not come within the Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre area, her application was also not taken into consideration. It is further contended that the residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Buguda, on the basis of which opposite party no. 3 had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre having been cancelled in the meantime by the Tahasildar, Buguda vide M.C. No. 733 of 2007, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in selecting the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. To be more specific, opposite party no. 3 initially got a residential certificate, vide Misc. Case No. 733 of 2007, as a resident of village Dungapalli under Jagannath Prasad Block, and five months thereafter, i.e., on 12.09.2007 in Misc. To be more specific, opposite party no. 3 initially got a residential certificate, vide Misc. Case No. 733 of 2007, as a resident of village Dungapalli under Jagannath Prasad Block, and five months thereafter, i.e., on 12.09.2007 in Misc. case No. 3104 of 2007, she again got a residential certificate showing to be a resident of village Barabara. Consequentially, an enquiry was caused on 18.02.2008 by the Tahsaildar, who, submitted a report that opposite party no. 3 was neither residing in village Barabara nor Dungapalli, and that she is actually residing at Jagannath Prasad. Accordingly, the two residential certificates granted to her earlier, upon review under the provisions of Rule-7 of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, were cancelled. It is thus contended that opposite party no. 3, being not a resident of Anganwadi Centre area, cannot claim to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi centre. It is further contended that opposite party no. 3, being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of her residential certificates passed by the Tahsildar under Rule-7 of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, preferred an appeal, but the Sub-Collector, without following due procedure of law, allowed the appeal on 16.01.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2009 passed by the Sub-Collector, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18857 of 2010, on the ground that the Sub-Collector has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the order was passed under Rule-7 of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, wherein this Court, by way of interim measure, has stayed operation of the order dated 16.01.2009 passed by the Sub-Collector, and the said writ petition is still pending for adjudication. 4. Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State opposite parties, while supporting the order impugned dated 23.12.2009, contended that the learned Sub-Collector is justified in cancelling the engagement of the petitioner by setting aside the selection made by the selection committee. It is further contended that as the order impugned cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, interference of this Court is not called for. 5. Mr. C.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 contended that her residential certificate, which had been declared invalid by the Tahasildar, having been validated in appeal by the Sub-Collector, and opposite party no. 5. Mr. C.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 contended that her residential certificate, which had been declared invalid by the Tahasildar, having been validated in appeal by the Sub-Collector, and opposite party no. 3 having secured higher mark than that of the petitioner, she is only eligible candidate to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre, thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar in passing the order impugned dated 23.12.2009 so as to warrant interference by this Court. 6. This Court heard Mr. G.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 1 and 2; and Mr. C.R. Sahoo, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3; and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. On the basis of the facts and rival contentions, as delineated above, it is to be considered whether the Sub-Collector is justified in passing the order impugned by cancelling the selection and engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre under Jagannath Prasad Block. The Sub-Collector, as reveals from the order impugned, considering the case of opposite party no. 3 that her residential certificate, which had been cancelled by the Tahasildar', had been validated in appeal, and that opposite party no. 3 had secured highest mark and belonged to Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre area, arrived at a conclusion that she should have been selected as Anganwadi Worker. But, it is of relevance to note that the said order passed by the appellate authority validating the residential certificate of opposite party no. 3 under Rule-7 of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, on being challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18857 of 2010 on the ground that the Sub-Collector has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the order passed under Rule-7 of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, has been stayed and the said writ petition is still pending for adjudication. This fact, as is evident, has not been taken note of by the Sub-Collector, while passing the order impugned dated 23.12.2009 in appeal. This fact, as is evident, has not been taken note of by the Sub-Collector, while passing the order impugned dated 23.12.2009 in appeal. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Sub-Collector, that the selection of the petitioner by the selection committee is not appropriate, and consequential setting aside of the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre, suffers from error apparent on the face of record and thus the order impugned dated 23.12.2009 cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the Sub-Collector has taken note of the subsequent event which was non-existent at the time of preferring appeal. 8. It is pertinent to mention that this Court, while entertaining this writ application, passed an interim order on 19.02.2010 to the extent that if the petitioner is still continuing as Anganwadi Worker of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre under Jagannath Prasad Block, she shall continue till the next date. The said interim order was extended from time to time and, by virtue of the same, the petitioner is continuing till date as Anganwadi Worker of Kriyadhar Anganwadi Centre, as is stated at the Bar. 9. For the all the above reasons, and in view of the fact that the order of the appellate authority revalidating the residential certificate of opposite party no. 3, which had been cancelled by the Tahasildar, has been stayed by virtue of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No. 18857 of 2010, which is still pending for adjudication, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 23.12.2009 in Annexure-5 passed by the Sub-Collector in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2008 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar-opposite party no 1 for afresh adjudication by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 10. The writ application is thus disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost.