MATANGINI ROUT @ GIRI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ is the order of the Sub -Collector, Balasore dated 22.4.2010 whereby he directed the CDPO, Baliapal to take steps for disengagement of the petitioner with further direction to engage Smt. Namitarani Das, if she was found suitable as per the selection list, in Langaleswar -V (Cinema Bazar) Anganwadi Centre within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

(2.) IN brief, case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of an advertisement, she had filed her application for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Langaleswar -V Anganwadi Centre. Petitioner possessed requisite qualification of 'Prathama' from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. After the selection process was complete, she was found to be the most eligible candidate and was accordingly issued an engagement order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure -4). Petitioner joined her post on 15.1.2010. Along with her joining report, she had submitted the requisite certificates. She was also allowed to undergo training on pre -integration skill held on 24.3.2010 vide letter dated 20.3.2010. Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in the aforesaid centre, respondent no.4 Smt. Namita Rani Das made a representation to the Sub -Collector alleging that the petitioner's certificate from Allahabad Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not equivalent to High School certificate examination and, therefore, she did not fulfill the requisite educational qualification for selection and accordingly, her selection was illegal. Respondent no.4, Namita Rani Das's representation was considered as an appeal by the Sub -Collector and it was registered as SSW Misc. Case No.29 of 2010. He allowed the appeal and ordered disengagement of the petitioner and engagement of respondent no.4, Namita Rani Das. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub -Collector, this petition has been filed.

(3.) MR . D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide notification dated 21.11.2006 Prathama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was considered and recognition was granted to 'Prathama' examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to pass in matriculation for a further period of three years from 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2010 by Government of India, Ministry of Resource Development Department of Higher Education for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the minimum qualification is a pass in matriculation. He has urged that in viewof this notification, petitioner had the requisite qualification for consideration of her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker. He has argued that petitioner was rightly found eligible and being most meritorious was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the aforesaid Centre. He has further argued that one Ranjan Kumar Patra and some other candidates having similar qualification as that of the petitioner are pursuing higher studies and they have been given admission by the Universities/Colleges accepting the certificate of Prathma issued by Hindi Sahity Sammelan as equivalent to pass in High School certificate conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. It is also the case of the petitioner that Sub -Collector did not ask the State Government to verify about the qualification acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad if was accepted by State Government not only in the Government matters but also for employment but, has proceeded with the assumption that the certificate of Prathama qualification obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not equivalent to the High School Certificate examination of the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to letter NO.XVIIE (H) -21/29/3218/EYS dated 23.2.1981 to emphasis that the State Government had accepted the examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to any examination like HSC/IA/BTC/CT for the propose of employment. Therefore, according to him, the order of the Sub -Collector being violative of this notification is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.