GITARANI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 20/12/2016 an advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Bhograi in the district of Balasore inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker for Golabagad Mini Anganwadi Center under CDPO, Bhograi. It was indicated in the said advertisement that the area of operation of the Mini Anganwadi Center would be Golabagad Part from House No. 68 to 76, i.e. the house of Panchu Gopal Das to Saraswati Dutta and from House No. 103 to 113 of Udayaganj Patna i.e. the house of Hemangini Pandit to Ramachandra Pandit. The petitioner belongs to village Udayaganj Patna Part. The advertisement stipulated that the applicant must be resident of the service area and that she is required to submit an affidavit indicating the house number as per the survey report along with the nativity certificate of the Tahasildar along with other terms and conditions, the petitioner submitted her application enclosing all the relevant documents on 5/1/2017. The CDPO, Bhograi called for survey report from the Anganwadi Workers, Ranjulata Sethi and Sangeeta Kundu, who submitted a report that the house of the petitioner's father- in-law, namely, Ramesh Chandra Behera is at serial no.110 of Udayaganj Patna and as such, she belongs to the area defined under House No.103 to House No.113. Three candidates had submitted applications including the petitioner. One Anjali Das and Puspanjali Das (the present opposite party no.4) are the other two applicants. At the time of scrutiny, it was found that the opposite party No. 4 did not have the requisite qualification for which her application was rejected. Out of the two remaining candidates the petitioner secured 72.2 points, while the said Anjali Das secured 39.5 points. Accordingly, the selection committee selected the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Golabagada Mini Anganwadi Center in its proceeding dtd. 6/4/2017. The final result sheet of selection of the Mini Anganwadi Workers was published on 6/4/2017, wherein the petitioner was declared as selected for Golabagada Mini Anganwadi Center under Barabati-2 Grama Panchayat.

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 jointly being sworn by the CDPO, Bhograi. It is, inter alia, stated in the counter that the CDPO, Bhograi had called for a survey report from the Anganwadi Worker of Bagad-2 and Anganwadi Worker of Udayaganj Patna, namely Ranjulata Sethi and Sangita Kundu respectively as per their survey registers. They had submitted report that the house of the petitioner's father-in-law, namely, Ramesh Chandra Behera is at house no. 110 of Udayaganj Patna, wherein the petitioner, her husband and her father-in-law are living, which is within the service area as mentioned in the advertisement dtd. 20/12/2016. It is further stated that the Sub-Collector, Balasore had approved the service area of Golabagada Mini Anganwadi Center, which was duly checked by the concerned area lady supervisor and CDPO, Bhograi. Nobody had challenged the matter before the higher forum at any point of time. The opposite party no. 3 issued a letter dtd. 9/1/2017 inviting objection against the applied candidates for selection of Mini Anganwadi Worker within a period of seven days but no objections were received regarding the qualification, service area etc. within the scheduled date and time. However, the opposite party no.4 challenged the service area of the petitioner by filing Anganwadi Appeal No.5 of 2017 after lapse of three months.

(3.) The opposite party No.4 has filed counter. It is basically stated that the petitioner's name does not find place in the voter list of the year 2012, 2014 and 2017. It is asserted that the petitioner does not reside in village Udayaganj Patna and that she had obtained the nativity certificate only for service purpose. Neither her house comes within the service area not the name of her father-in-law is there in the service area. On the contrary, the house of opposite party No.4 comes between the house of Panchu Gopal Das and Saraswati Dutta and therefore, she belongs to the service area. Though the petitioner has obtained the highest marks in HSC Examination, but as she is not a resident within the service area she does not fulfill the main criteria laid down in the advertisement. On the contrary, the opposite party no.4 fulfills all the criteria of the advertisement as also the requisite qualification. The finding of the ADM that the survey list prepared and submitted by the lady supervisor and the CDPO, Bhograi of Udayaganj Patna has not been authenticated as it was prepared on pick and choose manner. Therefore, the order passed by the ADM does not require any interference. The opposite party no.4 has also filed an objection to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and to the counter filed by the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3. It is stated that the averments made in paragraphs 1, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 18 and 19 of the said counter affidavit are directly against the order of the ADM. However, the opposite party no.3 being the CDPO has filed the affidavit on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 and the entire averments are in support of the case of the petitioner.