LALITA BHOI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 16/9/2021, the C.D.P.O., Chandahandi in the district of Nawarangpur issued an advertisement for engagement of Anganwadi workers in 13 Anganwadi centres, including Phatamunda Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner was one of the candidates, along with 11 others. The villagers objected to the candidatures of some of the candidates and so also Opposite Party No.5. Accordingly, a joint committee was formed to enquire whether the candidates belong to the concerned Anganwadi Worker and Supervisor to submit details. A joint report was submitted giving the house number and family number of the candidates belonging to the Centre area, wherein the name of the petitioner was at serial No.3. The selection committee found that only four candidates, including the petitioner belong to the service area. A merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks. Therefore, she was selected and issued with the order of engagement on 30/12/2021. She joined on 31/12/2021 in the Anganwadi Centre. Her selection was challenged by Opposite Party No.5 before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 852 of 2002, which was disposed of by order dtd. 8/2/2022 granting liberty to her to prefer appeal. She preferred appeal, being Appeal No. 6 of 2022 before the ADM, Nawarangpur, claiming that the petitioner does not belong to the Anganwadi Centre area. The petitioner appeared pursuant to notice of the appeal and took the plea that the mother-in-law of O.P. No.5, being the Anganwadi Worker of Palaspani Centre, deliberately inserted the name of the petitioner in that area. However, the same was struck down and the name of the petitioner was added to the Phatamunda Centre area. The CDPO also submitted a detailed report on 23/9/2022 stating that the petitioner is residing in the service area of the Centre. In another report submitted by the CDPO on 30/6/2024, it was stated that originally there was one Anganwadi Centre at Phatamunda covering the whole area, including Palaspani Mini Anganwadi Centre, which was created in 2012. At that time, the petitioner was residing at Chacharpada under Phatamunda village. The ADM, however, ignored the materials on record and held that as the petitioner had availed benefits such as eggs etc. from Pallaspani Anganwadi Centre till December 2021, she is not eligible to apply for engagement in Phatamunda Anganwadi Centre. The appeal was thus allowed. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner was disengaged by the CDPO vide letter dtd. 1/12/2024 but the said order was never communicated. Subsequently, this Court by order dtd. 11/11/2024 stayed the operation of the order of the ADM. The CDPO thereafter issued an engagement order on 30/11/2024 cancelling her earlier order and the petitioner was allowed to continue. However, she was not paid her remuneration and on verbal order of the higher authority, the engagement order issued on 30/11/2024 was again cancelled. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the prayer as quoted above.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO (Opp. Party No. 4) refuting the averments made in the writ application. It is stated that the petitioner was not a resident of the service area as is evident from several public documents mentioning her as a beneficiary. Though a report was submitted on 16/12/2021 by the in-charge Anganwadi Worker and Sector Supervisor mentioning that the petitioner belongs to Phatamunda AWC area and her house number is 168 with serial number 2 but the same is silent about the source of such information. The petitioner secured the highest marks among the other candidates, but she not being a resident of the service area, is not eligible and was wrongly engaged. All records and registers show that her name finds place in the service area of Palaspani Anganwadi Centre till the date of advertisement. The allegation that her name was intentionally inserted by the Anganwadi Worker in Palaspani AWC is false and baseless. The petitioner has secured all her entitlements as a beneficiary from Palaspani Anganwadi Centre, where she registered herself as a pregnant mother. Further, in the information obtained by Dharamu Bhoi and Manuraj Bhoi under the RTI Act, it was proved that as on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was a beneficiary under the Palaspani AWC.