PARBATI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions a common prayer is made for quashing the order No. 2092 dated 7.12.2011 passed under Annexure -3 by the Collector, Bhadrak wherein he has instructed the C.D.P.O., Dhamnagar to issue disengagement order to 61 Anganwadi Helpers already engaged and further to go for fresh selection strictly by adhering to the guidelines issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Odisha giving liberty to said 61 Anganwadi helpers to participate. Since the issues involved in all the above writ petitions are identical in nature, they are disposed of by this common judgment at the admission stage.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case in a nutshell is that a decision was taken at the Government level sanctioning one Helper post to each Anganwadi centre. In the year 2010 the C.D.P.O., Dhamnagar published an advertisement for the post of Anganwadi Helper as per guideline/instruction of the Government. Accordingly, the candidates had applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper at different Anganwadi Centres. After following due process of selection, the petitioners were issued with the order of appointment pursuant to which they joined in different centres as Anganwadi Helpers. The petitioners were paid their salary regularly. While the matter stood thus, the Collector, Bhadrak vide his order dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure -3) instructed the C.D.P.O., Dhamnagar to disengage the petitioners and to go for fresh selection. Hence the present writ petitions.

(3.) MR . Biswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Parties referring to the counter affidavit filed by opp. Party Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the Collector, Bhadrak has passed the order of disengagement on the ground that selection of Anganwadi Helpers has not been made in accordance with the guideline. Since the petitioners were not disengaged because of any laches on the part of the petitioners no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them. Mr. Biswal further submitted that as per the guideline, the selection of Anganwadi Helper should have been made by a properly constituted Selection Committee and the A.N.M. of the project is one of the members of the Selection Committee. As the petitioners were engaged by a committee in absence of A.N.M., they were disengaged. Challenging the entire process of selection of Anganwadi Helpers some of the unsuccessful candidates who were in the fray filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(c) No. 881 of 2011 in this Court which was disposed of on 9.3.2011 with a direction to opposite party No. 1 to take a decision on inquiry report of the Addl. Sub -Collector, Bhadrak and the D.S.W.O., Bhadrak. After engagement of Anganwadi Helpers complaints were lodged before the Collector, Bhadrak regarding the irregularities committed by the selection committee in making selection. Upon receipt of such complaints, the Collector directed the Addl. Sub -Collector, Bhadrak to cause an inquiry into the allegations and furnish a report. The Addl. Sub -Collector and D.S.W.O., Bhadrak conducted a joint inquiry and submitted a report to the Collector. It is submitted that the Collector after considering the joint inquiry report with reference to the available record relating to the selection process of 109 Anganwadi Helpers found that the selection made in respect of 61 Anganwadi centres is irregular and inconsistence with the government guideline and declared the same as void and instructed the C.D.P.O. to issue disengagement order and to go for fresh selection strictly adhering to the guidelines issued by the government. Pursuant to the said order of the Collector, the C.D.P.O. issued the disengagement order.