PANKAJINI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE party no. 4 in W.P.(C) No. 22259 of 2010 being the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, quashing the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by Sub -Collector, Khurda in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2010 as not sustainable.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 3 -the Child Development Project Officer, Chilika I.C.D.S. Project issued notification No. 108 dated 11.02.1999 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Baulabandha -4 Anganwadi Centre. As per the guidelines, the women candidates having minimum qualification of Matriculation and residing in the same village/Anganwadi Centre area alone would be eligible for such engagement. The appellant along with respondent no. 4 and other applicants totaling eleven in all, submitted their applications and the selection was done on the basis of the marks secured in the Matriculation Examination. As per the advertisement, the candidates were required to produce their original certificates for scrutiny on 27.02.2009. But subsequently, the said date was shifted. Ultimately, the date of scrutiny was fixed to 30.11.2009 and it was found that the appellant had not submitted her mark -sheet of 10th class examination, instead she had enclosed the mark -sheet of her husband -Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Rath. So far as other applicants are concerned, one Smita Janhabi Nanda withdrew her candidature and the cases of six applicants were rejected as they belonged to area outside the Baulabandha -4 Anganwadi Centre area. Therefore, the cases of only three candidates were taken into consideration on the basis of their residential eligibility. However, since the appellant had not submitted her matriculation mark sheet, she was not eligible for consideration. Thus, only two applications were considered and the selection committee selected respondent no. 4 as she secured highest total marks of 46.6% as against the other valid candidate, Smt. Reena Behera, who secured 37.8% of marks. Consequent, engagement order was issued on 11.01.2010 in favour of respondent no. 4 as Anganwadi worker in respect of Baulabandha -4 Anganwadi Centre. The present appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2010 before the Sub -Collector, Khurdha challenging the selection of respondent no. 4 as Anganwadi worker in respect of concerned center. After giving due opportunity of hearing, the Sub -Collector, Khurdha held that if at all the appellant had not submitted her mark sheet at the time of scrutiny, her name could not have been reflected in the scrutiny list. So it is clear that some mischief has been made to remove her mark sheet from the concerned selection file but she produced the original marks sheet from which it was found that she had secured 323 marks which is more than the marks secured by respondent no. 4. Therefore, the Sub -Collector, Khurda allowed the appeal, cancelled the selection of respondent no. 4 vide order dated 18.10.2010 under Annexure -13 in respect of Baulabandha -4 Anganwadi Centre and directed the C.D.P.O., Chilika to disengage her after observing due formalities and appoint another Anganwadi worker as per the Government guideline. Challenging the said appellate order, respondent no. 4 preferred the writ petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Sub -Collector, Khurdha in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2010 as not sustainable and allowed the writ petition, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the present appellant, opposite party no. 4 in the writ petition.

(3.) MR . J.P. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submitted that the records of the selection procedure of Anganwadi worker had been called for by the learned Single Judge and on perusing the materials available on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, he passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the allegation of non -availability of Annexure -D on record is not correct and all the documents were available on record itself and on perusing the same, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition on the basis of the materials available on record.