JAYANTI NANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector, Chatrapur in Misc. Appeal No.19/2009 at Annexure-9, by which her engagement as anganwadi worker of Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre has been set aside and direction has been given to the CDPO to disengage her forthwith and to place the matter before the selection Committee to examine the claim of petitioner vis -vis opposite party no.5 as per the prevailing guidelines and finalize the selection of anganwadi worker in respect of Anganwadi Centre in question within a period of one month.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Chatrapur issued an advertisement on 01.06.2009 in Annexure-1 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection of Anganwadi Workers in respect of various Anganwadi Centres of Chatrapur NAC, which includes Station Road Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre. As per such advertisement, the applicant must be a social worker residing within the centre area for more than six months and, as such, she should produce the residential certificate from the local Tahasildar issued within six months. The minimum qualification prescribes in the said advertisement is matriculation and age should be within 18 to 42 years as of 01.01.2009. If any candidate of the Centre area is not made available, then the candidate from nearby area should be given opportunity. The applications were to reach between 01.06.2009 and 15.06.2009. As such, the candidates were to remain present on 16.06.2009 for verification of documents and objection if any, should be filed between 16.06.2009 and 23.06.2009. In the event, any application received beyond the time stipulated, the same was not to be accepted.

(3.) Mr. B. Senapati, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that if the petitioner does not belong to the centre area, namely, Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre, even if she has been selected and engaged by mistake, that itself cannot give a right to continue in the post, if the same has been detected subsequently by the authority, the same can be rectified. It is further contended that the petitioner had offered her candidature for Narasinghpur Anganwadi Centre, by virtue of the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar, and her name was published in the draft list prepared by the selection committee, but merely because she could not come out successful in respect of the said centre as per the guideline, she cannot be considered to be a valid candidate for another centre, namely, Railway Colony Anganwadi Centre. He further contended that since the error was committed by the selection committee, the same has been rectified subsequently. Therefore, the order impugned is wholly and fully justified, which need not be interfered with at this stage.