SASMITA JENA Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions since common question involved, as such both the cases have been disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners of both the cases have participated in the selection process for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker for the centre in question and in course of comparative assessment of candidature one Sasmita Jena, the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10738 of 2012 had been selected and engaged, her engagement was questioned by the other candidate namely, Kumari Basantilata Parhi, the writ petitioner in W.P.C. No. 18404 of 2012 and on her application an appeal was registered being Anganwadi Appeal No. 43 of 2011 which was decided vide order dated 17.5.2012 and the order was passed by the concerned A.D.M. disengaging Sasmita Jena and thereby directing for engagement of Basantilata Parhi, the said order was challenged by Sasmita Jena in W.P. (C) No. 10738 of 2012 and this Court vide order dated 25.06.2012 while issuing notice upon the opposite parties has passed an interim order to the effect that Sasmita Jena shall not be disengaged pursuant to the order under Annexure-3 dated 17.5.2012 passed by the A.D.M. in Anganwadi Appeal No. 43 of 2011 and in pursuance to the said interim order the C.D.P.O. has issued order dated 24.7.2012 allowing Sasmita Jena to continue with the post and in pursuance to the same Sasmita Jena has resumed her duty, immediately thereafter Basantilata Parhi has filed a separate writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 18404 of 2012 assailing the order dated 24.7.2012 and as such both the cases have been tagged together since the matter relates to the consequence of the order passed by the A.D.M. which is under challenge in W.P. (C) No. 10738 of 2012.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 10738 of 2012 is that on the date when the selection of Basantilata Parhi has been made, the residential certificate issued by the competent authority under the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules had already been cancelled but the A.D.M. exceeding his jurisdiction has given finding in the Anganwadi Appeal regarding legality and propriety of the cancellation order passed by the Addl. Tahasildar regarding cancellation of the residential certificate issued in favour of Basantilata Parhi.