SASMITA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this case assails the order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak on dated 12.12.2008 in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9420 of 2008."

(2.) Petitioner was an applicant for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker with respect to Kaupur, Belagadia Anganwadi Centre, district, Bhadrak. Her application was accepted and in the short list her name was reflected, but finally her candidature was rejected on the ground that she does not reside in the service area of the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre. Thereafter, she preferred a writ application before this Court, which was disposed of directing the Collector, Bhadrak to enquire into the matter and to decide, if irregularity, as alleged, has been committed and to pass necessary orders strictly in accordance with law and the guidelines.

(3.) This Court in Chandramani Jena and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors.,2007 2 OLR 577 has held that the State has no right to make law restricting appointment on the ground of residence. The aforesaid decision of this Court relates to selection of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak. In the advertisement it was stipulated that applicants should be the resident of the block in question. The Division Bench ruled that the State has no right to make a law restricting the appointment on the ground of residence. The Court further ruled that in policy matters Court has to be slow and circumspect before interfering with the same but the Government's right to frame a policy is always subject to constitutional mandate. If the complaint is that the mandate is flouted, then only the Court, which can examine the same and the Court is duty bound to do so. Observing thus the Division Bench of this Court has held that stipulation of residence within the block area as a criterion for applying as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak is bad as it is barred under Articles 16(2) of the Constitution of India, 1949.