Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 26 (ORI)

Purnima Pattanayak v. State of Odisha

2024-03-28

SASHIKANTA MISHRA

body2024
JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra, J. The order passed by Addl. District Magistrate, Dhenkanal in Appeal (AWW) Case No.2/2017 on 16.09.2017 is impugned in the present writ application. 2. The facts of the case are that the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Odapada (opposite party No.5) issued an advertisement on 21.09.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Besalia-1 Additional Anganwadi Center. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner being a resident of the concerned service area, submitted her application along with all relevant documents and certificates. The selection was conducted by the selection committee under the Chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal, wherein the petitioner was selected. The C.D.P.O. issued engagement order in her favour on 19.11.2016, pursuant to which she joined in the center on 25.11.2016. It is stated that she is continuing in the said center. On 05.05.2017, the opposite party No.6 submitted a representation before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Dhenknal, which was treated as the aforementioned appeal. Such representation was submitted on the ground that the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar on 30.11.2015 submitted by her had not been considered. Moreover, she had secured higher marks than the petitioner and therefore, should have been selected for engagement. The appeal was heard in presence of both parties and by the order impugned (copy enclosed as Annexure-5) the ADM held that the selection committee had committed error in rejecting the candidature of the appellant (opposite party no.6) on the ground that the resident certificate furnished by her was more than six months old. The ADM found that she had secured more marks than the petitioner and further that there was no stipulation in the advertisement dated 21.09.2016 regarding submission of resident certificate. That apart, there is nothing in the certificate to show that it was valid for six months. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the engagement order dated 19.11.2016 issued in favour of the petitioner was quashed. 3. The State opposite party (opposite party No.2) has filed counter refuting the averments made in the writ application and seeking to justify the reasoning adopted by the ADM in the impugned order. It has been further stated that pursuant to advertisement in question five candidates submitted their applications including the petitioner and opposite party No.6, of whom the application of one candidate was rejected as she was a not resident of the service area in question. It has been further stated that pursuant to advertisement in question five candidates submitted their applications including the petitioner and opposite party No.6, of whom the application of one candidate was rejected as she was a not resident of the service area in question. The petitioner secured 52.63% marks while the opposite party No.6 secured 56.57% marks but her resident certificate was more than 6 months old, for which engagement order was issued in favour of the petitioner. Referring to the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, it is stated that there is no validity period mentioned for resident certificate issued under such Rules and therefore, the selection committee committed a mistake in ignoring the certificate produced by opposite party No.6. As such, the ADM rightly allowed the appeal. 4. The private opposite party No.6 has also filed counter affidavit. It is stated that she had obtained the resident certificate from the office of the Tahasildar, Odapada on 30.11.2015 which shows that she is a permanent resident of the service area in question. She had secured the highest marks in the selection process. There was nothing in the advertisement that the resident certificate should be within six months preceding the date of advertisement nor there was any provision in the prevailing Rules indicating period of validity of such certificate. Under such circumstances she filed the appeal, which was rightly allowed. 5. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State; and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for private opposite party No.6. 6. Mr. Mohapatra would argue that firstly, the opposite party No.6 without having raised any objection to the process of selection, straightaway preferred an appeal and that too beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Mohapatra has referred to the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the Government in Women & Child Development Department in this regard. He further submits that in order to ensure that the applicant belongs to the service area in question, it is necessary that the resident certificate obtained by her must be of recent origin as otherwise it is possible that a person having such a certificate issued in her favour long before may have moved to another area at the time of submission of application. Under such circumstances, the certificate submitted by the opposite party No.6 being more than one year old was rightly rejected by the selection committee. 7. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would argue that as per the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing appeal. Moreover, objections relating to the selection are to be submitted during the process of selection itself and there is no provision for filing of objection after the process of selection is over. He further submits that there was no stipulation in the advertisement that the certificate ought to have been obtained six months prior to the date of advertisement. There is no such provision in the revised guidelines either. According to Mr. Pattnaik therefore, the ADM very rightly interfered with the decision of the selection committee and allowed the appeal as the opposite party No.6 was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner. 8. Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite party No.6, while adopting the arguments put forth by the State Counsel, further submits that his client had admittedly secured the highest marks and therefore, ought to have been selected. The selection committee rejected her candidature most unjustly on the ground that the certificate submitted by her was more than six months old even though there was neither any such stipulation in the advertisement nor the guidelines mandated so. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds that the facts of the case are not disputed inasmuch as the petitioner and opposite party No.6 having applied for engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Besalia-1 Additional Anganwadi Center went through the selection process conducted by the selection committee under the Chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal. On a comparative assessment of merit, the petitioner was found to have secured 53.26 points while the opposite party No.6 secured 56.57 points. Thus, there can be no dispute that the opposite party no.6 was more meritorious than the petitioner. 10. On a comparative assessment of merit, the petitioner was found to have secured 53.26 points while the opposite party No.6 secured 56.57 points. Thus, there can be no dispute that the opposite party no.6 was more meritorious than the petitioner. 10. From the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the selection committee held on 19.11.2016 it is seen that despite noting that the opposite party No.6 had secured more marks than the petitioner, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had not submitted resident certificate obtained within six months and it was decided to select the petitioner. It is not disputed that the opposite party No.6 had produced the resident certificate issued by the Revenue Officer on 30.11.2015. The advertisement was issued on 21.09.2016. Perusal of the advertisement reveals that it was stipulated under Clause-1 that the candidates should be permanent residents of the service area of the Additional Anganwadi Center and in such respect they are to submit attested true copies of the resident certificate issued in their favour by the local Tahasildar. As has been argued, there is no stipulation in the advertisement that the resident certificate ought to have been obtained within six months prior to the date of the advertisement. Reference in this regard may also be made to the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the Government in W & CD Department. There is no provision in the said guidelines requiring the resident certificate of having been obtained six months prior to the date of advertisement. It is not known as to on what basis the selection committee took such a view. They have not spelt out the reason for holding so. Another thing that strikes to the mind is that the decision of the selection committee in respect Besalia-1 Additional Anganwadi Center appears to have been interpolated to the naked eye. The minutes appear to have been inserted subsequently using small letters to adjust the available space. It is so palpably apparent that one cannot miss it. Sadly, the ADM has not taken cognizance of it. This Court only observes that the concerned authorities, such as the Collector of the district may look into this aspect of the matter so as to ascertain if any deliberate foul play was involved. 11. It is so palpably apparent that one cannot miss it. Sadly, the ADM has not taken cognizance of it. This Court only observes that the concerned authorities, such as the Collector of the district may look into this aspect of the matter so as to ascertain if any deliberate foul play was involved. 11. Be that as it may, it has been argued that if the opposite party No.6 was aggrieved by the decision of the selection committee, she should have first submitted objection before such committee and in case of any further grievance she should have preferred appeal within six months to the Additional District Magistrate. She however, neither submitted any objection nor preferred the appeal within the stipulated period. As such, the appeal was not maintainable. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has brought to the notice of this Court the guidelines of the Government dated 06.09.2006 wherein six months' time was prescribed for filing of appeal. However, while issuing the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 all previous guidelines/ circulars were superseded. As such, no period of limitation for filing appeal was prescribed by the prevailing guidelines. 12. Reference to the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 reveals that a detailed procedure has been laid down therein under the heading 'Procedure' which is quoted hereinbelow for immediate reference. '(a) In case of engaging Anganwadi Worker for casual vacancies or for new Anganwadi Centers, notification regarding the Anganwadi Centre where the Anganwadi Worker is going to be engaged will be put up simultaneously in the village, in the concerned Gram Panchayat, the Panchayat Samiti, and the CDPO's office. (b) 15 days time will be given to the candidates to apply to the CDPO alongwith the documents in support of nativity, educational qualification, caste and any other. The receipt of the application shall be acknowledged by the CDPO. (c) On the 16th day the CDPO will verify the documents of the applicants in their presence and will notify the name of the applicants in her office notice board and at the village, GP and Panchayat Samiti level. In case 16th day is holiday then, verification and notification of applicants will be done on the next working day. (d) 7 days time will be given for .filing of objection, if any, by the community on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate. In case 16th day is holiday then, verification and notification of applicants will be done on the next working day. (d) 7 days time will be given for .filing of objection, if any, by the community on the issue of nativity, educational qualification and caste certificate. (e) The selection committee may take 7 days time to verify the objections received. (f) After the enquiry into the objection and verification of documents, the Selection Committee will give points to all the eligible candidates as per the criteria spelt out in the guideline. The Committee will finally select the candidate who secures the maximum points. In case two or more candidates secure same points, preference will be given to the older candidate. The Committee will notify the candidate selected on the same day in Panchayat Samiti and CDPO's office and within 48 hours at the GP and village level. CDPO is authorized to issue engagement order in favour of the candidate selected and this should be issued within 24 hours of the selection of the candidate. (g) In case the Chairman of the Selection Committee does not finalise the list within the stipulated time, the same will be put up to Sub-Collector for approval in case of rural projects and A.D.M. in case of urban projects and the matter should be disposed within seven days. (h) In case of dissolution of Panchayat Samiti and Municipal elected bodies, the Sub-Collector and ADM shall be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee of Rural/ Urban ICDS for selection of Anganwadi Workers respectively. (i) Sub-Collector will be the appellate authority for hearing complaints regarding selection of Anganwadi Workers for tribal and rural projects and Addl District Magistrate will be the appellate authority for complaints regarding selection of Anganwadi Workers for urban projects. Collector shall be the appellate authority in case SubCollector/ ADM have approved the selection as per para 'g' and 'h' above. (j) The Zilla-Parishad will be informed, through, its Secretary and PD., DRDA by the DSWO about selection of the Anganwadi Worker and her engagement as such. ' A plain reading of the aforequoted provisions reveals that firstly, there is no scope for submitting any objection after completion of the process of selection and secondly, no period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring appeal. ' A plain reading of the aforequoted provisions reveals that firstly, there is no scope for submitting any objection after completion of the process of selection and secondly, no period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring appeal. In the instant case, the selection process was concluded on 19.11.2016 and the appeal was preferred on 05.05.2016, i.e., within a period of six months. According to the considered view of this Court, the appeal was preferred within a reasonable period and therefore, rightly entertained. 13. Another aspect of the matter to be taken note of is, it is not the case of the petitioner that the opposite party No.6 is not a permanent resident of the service area in question or that she resides elsewhere. The resident certificate issued in her favour on 30.11.2015 shows that she ordinarily resides in village Besalia. There is nothing to show that such certificate had been cancelled/withdrawn or otherwise not valid at the time of its submission by the opposite party No.6. There is thus, no way by which the certificate in question could have been ignored. Evidently, the selection committee, for reasons unknown fell into error in not accepting such certificate. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the ADM has appreciated the facts of the case and the law involved in the correct perspective to hold that the selection committee erred in rejecting the candidature of opposite party No.6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court concurs with such finding. 14. In view of what has been said before, this Court finds no infirmity much less any illegality having been committed by the ADM in allowing the appeal filed by opposite party No.6 as per the impugned order. This Court therefore, finds no reason to interfere therewith. 15. In the result, the writ application being devoid of any merit is therefore, dismissed but without any costs.