MANASI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Ch. Mohanty, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

(2.) The facts, in brief, necessary for the present adjudication, are that a process was initiated for appointment of Anganwadi worker in respect of Keutagarh Anganwadi centre under Kendrapara Block, in which amongst others, the appellant and respondent No. 5 did participate. After the completion of the process, the appellant was selected for appointment. Respondent No. 5 approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2590 of 2010 assailing her selection. This Court by order dated 09.03.2011 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara to consider and dispose of the representation in the meanwhile submitted by respondent No. 5. On being queried by us, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the said representation was rejected by the Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, but the respondent No. 5 did not challenge the said decision.

(3.) Be that as it may, respondent No. 5 initiated a second round of litigation in W.P. (C) No. 2216 of 2013 praying for issuance of appropriate writ to restrain the appointment of the appellant to the above mentioned post essential on the ground that in calculating the marks awarded to the candidates correct norms had not been applied.