SANJULATA BEHERA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge the order dated 9.7.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4469 of 2013.

(2.) FACTS as borne out from the writ appeal are that pursuant to a notification for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Talatala (Nuasahi) Anganwadi Centre published vide Advertisement No. 501 dated 14.12.2009 inviting applications from the intending candidates, the present appellant along with respondent No. 4 and two others applied for the said post. In the consideration process, it was found that the appellant is a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre and having secured highest mark amongst the candidates eligible for the Anganwadi Centre, vide Order No. 525 dated 18.9.2010, she was given an offer of appointment as Anganwadi Worker. While the appellant was continuing as such, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal bearing Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 51 of 2010. The appellant contended that respondent No. 4 is not a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area and thus was not eligible for being considered for the post and dismissed the Appeal. As against the order of dismissal of the Appeal, respondent No. 4 filed writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 4469 of 2013, which was disposed by the impugned order dated 9.7.2015, thereby reversing the order passed by the appellate authority giving rise to the present writ appeal. The appellant has contended that looking to the provisions contained in the advertisement and the subsequent guidelines in the matter of residence of a candidate, the appellant deserved to be considered and the respondent No. 4 has no case for the reason that she was not a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area. The appellant has alleged that the impugned order is not only contrary to the material available on record but also without due consideration of the observation of the Selection Committee as well as the appellate authority, particularly, in the matter of residence of the candidates. The respondent No. 4 on her appearance, on the other hand, submitted that she along with other candidates submitted their applications against the advertisement. Out of 4 (four) candidates, the application of one Mira Pradhan was rejected for her remaining absent at the time of verification of the documents. Out of the remaining 3 (three) candidates, she not only secured highest marks i.e. 58.07% but she was also found to be belonging to the Anganwadi Centre area. In spite of materials available indicating the respondent No. 4 belongs to the Anganwadi Centre area, her appeal was illegally rejected. Therefore, this matter has been reconsidered and the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly reversed the order of the appellate authority. Respondent No. 4 thus claimed that there is no illegality in the impugned order leaving any scope for the Division Bench to interfere with the same.

(3.) THIS advertisement was published on 14.12.2009 requiring applications from the candidates of the concerned area, undoubtedly relates to Anganwadi Centre area and from the above information it is amply clear that the Anganwadi Centre area no doubt is part of Purunasahi and that too from the house of Chakrapani Biswal up to the house of Sundari Bewa. Now looking to the guidelines appended to the Writ Appeal, the guideline dated 2.5.2007 issued by the Government of Orissa in Women & Child Development Department, in supersession of all previous guidelines/orders in the said regard, clearly contains as follows: