AFR MINATEE PRADHAN Vs. COLLECTOR, BARGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Buromunda Anganwadi Centre No.5 of village Boromunda of Gaisilat Block in the district of Baragarh, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash order no. 628 dated 27.07.2010 at Annexure-6 engaging opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, so also the order dated 27.12.2012 at Annexure-7 passed by the A.D.M., Bargarh dismissing AWW Appeal No.16 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that as per the decision of the Government, five Anganwadi Centers were opened in village Buromunda and a survey list for demarcating the Anganwadi Center area was prepared. The C.D.P.O., Gaisilat issued an advertisement on 11.12.2009 for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5. In the said advertisement, it was indicated that the candidates, who belonged to Anganwadi Center area, are eligible to apply as per the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner, opposite party no.5 and one Kumari Girisuta Sahu submitted their applications. But the villagers, after coming to know that opposite party no.5 is a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, filed written objections before the B.D.O., Gaisilat and concerned C.D.P.O., Gaisilat and sought for cancellation of her candidature on the ground that opposite party no.5 and her family members do not reside within the service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, but in the survey list the surveyor intentionally inserted the name of the husband of opposite party no.5 only to show that the opposite party no.5 is the resident of service area of Buromunda Angnawadi Center No.5. It was specifically pleaded that the survey list was prepared by one Labanga Pradhan, who is working as Anganwadi Worker in Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.2 and she, being the sister-in-law of opposite party no.5, intentionally inserted her brother's name, Chaubarga Pradhan within the centre area only to engage opposite party no.5 in Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in support of her stand taken in the appeal the petitioner had relied upon photocopy of the documents, but without going through those documents the finding arrived at by the learned ADM is an outcome of non-application of mind. The learned ADM simply accepted the version of the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat that enquiry report was placed before the selection committee, particularly when the said enquiry report was prepared by the SEO I/c, Gaisilat Block and the Medical Officer, CHC Gaisilat, who were also members of the selection committee. It is further contended that the CDPO, Gaislet, only with an ulterior motive, placed before the selection committee the survey list of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, in which the name of the husband of opposite party no.5 is placed at serial no. 42, to prove that opposite party no.5 is a resident of service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center no.5. Accordingly, comparative statement of marks was prepared and the selection committee, without going through the objection and enquiry report, selected opposite party no.5, as she had secured highest percentage of marks. It is further contended that the said comparative statement was not signed by the B.D.O., Gaisilat, who was a member of the selection committee, but the learned ADM, in the order impugned erroneously, stated that the Sub-Collector, Padampur as well as other members signed the said comparative statement, for which the order impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted before the learned ADM the voter list of village Buromunda of the year 2010, in which the names of entire family members of opposite party no.5 are reflected at serial nos. 1498 to 1503, which indicates that the entire family members are residing in one house bearing house no. 375. In the said voter list, it has also been indicated that Labanga Pradhan, who has prepared the survey list of Buromunda Anganwadi Center no.5, is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.5, and that Purandhar Pradhan is the father-in-law of opposite party no.5, who is the head of the family and they are residing in one house. As per the entire survey list in Annexure-1, which was prepared for demarcating the center area, the name of father-in-law of opposite party no.5 as head of family is indicated at serial no. 410, which comes under the service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.2. Therefore, even though the entire family of opposite party no.5 resides in one house, which comes under the service area of Buromunda Angnawadi Center No.2, Labanga Pradhan cunningly inserted the name of her brother at serial no. 42 showing the opposite party no.5 as a resident of service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, but, the learned ADM, Baragarh has not taken into consideration this aspect in proper perspective. Therefore, petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the learned ADM, Bargarh, as well as the order of engagement dated 27.07.2010 issued by the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat in favour of opposite party no.5 engaging her as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5.