PUSPANJALI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is directed against an order dtd. 6/9/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.26519 of 2017 filed by Respondent No.4 thereby setting aside an order dtd. 21/11/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Balasore in allowing Anganwadi Appeal No.5 of 2017 filed by the present Appellant, who had questioned the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Anganwadi Worker (AWW) at the Golabagada Mini Anganwadi Centre (AWC) under the ICDS Project, Bhograi.

(2.) The challenge to the appointment of Respondent No.4 was on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area as advertised by the CDPO, Bhograi for the concerned AWC. In the order dtd. 21/11/2017 while allowing the appeal of the present Appellant, the ADM noted that the dwelling house of Respondent No.4 was not situated within the service area of the concerned AWC and that the area survey list submitted by the AWW of Udayaganj Patna had not been authenticated by the Sector Lady Supervisor and the CDPO, Bhograi. According to the ADM, it had been prepared on 'pick and choose' basis.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has in the impugned order referred to the fact that in the survey report, the house of Respondent No.4 was at Serial No.110 which was the house of her father-in-law, in which she resided along with her husband. The survey report prepared by the AWW, Udayaganj Patna also substantiated this plea. The CDPO also accepted that report. Only because it did not bear the signature of the Lady Supervisor, the ADM held the said document not to be authentic.