BINATA BARAL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application prays for a direction to the State -opposite parties to appoint her as Anganwadi Worker in Gopalpur Anganwadi Centre under Gondia ICDS Project on the ground that she had secured the highest mark and her case has not been considered.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she had applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker for the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre and there were also other applicants. After completion of selection procedure, it was found that the petitioner has secured highest marks and was placed at serial No.1 in the select list. In spite of the fact that the petitioner secured first position in the select list, no appointment letter was issued in her favour and upon inquiry, it was found that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party No.4 regarding selection of the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted by the Sub -Collector, Dhenkanal and subsequently by the Sub -Collector, Kamakshyanagar and on the basis of one such report, 4% marks were deducted from the total marks obtained by the petitioner as a result of which, opposite party No.4 secured the first position in the select list. The further case of the petitioner is that she was never given an opportunity of hearing neither at the time of inquiry nor at the time of action taken on the basis of the inquiry report. The petitioner, therefore approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12550 of 2003 and the said writ application was disposed of with direction to the opposite party No.1 to look into the grievance of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the opposite party No.1 on 3.4.2004 and challenging the same, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4646 of 2004. This Court disposed of the writ application on 20th April, 2004 since the petitioner did not produce the certified copy of the order passed by the opposite party No.1 and was granted permission to re -file after obtaining the copy thereof. The petitioner has filed this writ application after obtaining the certified copy of the order.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit submitted that the order of the Collector impugned before this Court clarifies the position and, therefore, there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the order of the Collector. It is stated in paragraph -5 of the counter affidavit that the opposite party No.3 had published the provisional select list in the notice board instead of publishing the result. According to the learned counsel for the State, the final selection list can only be published after approval of the concerned Committee of the Zilla parisad/Collector as the case may be. In the case of the petitioner, in the provisional selection list though her name found place at serial No.1 but when the matter was sent for approval, it was found that she had been illegally given four marks for the past experience and, therefore, the same was deducted from the total marks. After deduction of the said four marks, opposite party No.4 became No.1 in the select list and accordingly was given appointment. It is further stated in paragraph -11 of the counter affidavit that the certificate produced by the petitioner does not reflect that she had any working experience relating to the duties of Anganwadi worker and, therefore, she cannot be equated with others who are alleged to have been selected on the basis of certificates issued by the Non -Government Organization. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.4 also adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State.