MANASI BISI Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE, BARGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by opposite party no.1-Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh in AWW Appeal No. 31 of 2011, by which the aforesaid appeal filed by opposite party no.3 has been allowed and engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani has been quashed.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that opposite party no.2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani, pursuant to which, the petitioner, opposite party no.3 and proforma opposite parties no.4 to 6 applied for. The said applications were verified on 16.03.2011 and a merit list was accordingly prepared. The proforma opposite party no.4 got highest marks, but as she was an outsider and there were some allegations against her, she did not join. Consequentially, the petitioner, who stood second in the merit list, was issued with engagement letter vide Annexure-2 dated 23.04.2011 by opposite party no.2. Accordingly, the petitioner joined and continued to discharge her duty as Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani.

(3.) Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when the first candidate in the merit list did not join, as she was an outsider, the selection committee gave engagement to the 2nd meritorious candidate, i.e. the petitioner. Thereby, the engagement of the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani by opposite party no.2-Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Barpali is well justified. It is further contended that even if there is no provision in the advertisement that in case the 1st candidate in the merit list does not turn up, the 2nd candidate will get a chance, but that does not mean, opposite party no.2 or the selection committee is powerless to engage the next meritorious candidate when there is no bar for the same. Furthermore, it is contended that opposite party no.1 should have called for opposite party no.2 to explain as to whether there is any contrary guideline to the effect that such engagement cannot be made and the same being not done, opposite party no.1 should not have passed the order impugned dated 18.04.2012 under Annexure-1 against the petitioner.