BAIJAYANATI NAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the decision of the selection committee meeting dated 14.12.2015(Annexure -6) and the order of disengagement dated 22.12.2015(Annexure -7).

(2.) Case of the petitioner in short is that in pursuance to the advertisement floated by the opposite party no.5 for filling up post of Anganwadi Worker in Tangianisha -II Anganwadi Centre in the year 2011, petitioner along with others had applied for the post by furnishing required documents. After due verification, the petitioner and the opposite party no.6 were found in the merit list at serial nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Since the petitioner was more meritorious than the opposite party no.6, she was selected by the selection committee and engagement order was issued. Accordingly, petitioner joined as Anganwadi Worker for the in question, while the petitioner was working complaint was filed by the opposite party no.6 before the Additional District Magistrate, Angul , opposite party kno.3, by filing an appeal which was registered as Anganwadi Appeal Case No.28 of 2011. Notice was issued by the opposite party no.3 to the petitioner to appear before him in order to adjudicate the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared through her Advocate before the opposite party no.3. Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 3.3.2014 directing the Sub -Collector , Athamallik -cum -Chairman of the selection committee to convene selection committee meeting, place all relevant facts and findings before the committee and take final decision as per the government guideline without any delay. As per the guideline dated 2.5.2007 power has been conferred upon the A.D.M. to adjudicate the appeal regarding the dispute arises out of selection and engagement of Anganwadi worker and as such it is incumbent upon the A.D.M. of the concerned district to adjudicate the appeal instead of referring the matter before the Chair -person of the selection committee, but the A.D.M. instead of deciding the appeal has referred the matter before the Sub - Collector vide order dated 3.3.2014 which is absolutely illegal and improper action on the part of the A.D.M. and by doing so he has not acted in terms of the power conferred upon him in the guideline dated 2.5.2007. After the order having been passed by the A.D.M. dated 3.3.2014, opposite party no.6 has filed a writ petition before being W.P.(C) No.19722 of 2015 for issuance of direction upon the opposite party no.4 to comply with the order

(3.) After the order having been passed by the A.D.M. dated 3.3.2014 opposite party no.6 has filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.19722 of 2015 for issuance of direction upon the opposite party no.4 to comply with the order passed by the opposite party no.3 dated 3.3.2014. This Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 6.11.2015 has directed the Sub -Collector, Athamallik to comply with the order passed by the A.D.M. if at all the order is in operation. Ground taken by the opposite party no.6 before the A.D.M. for quashing engagement of the petitioner that she is not residing within the centre area of the Anganwadi Centre in question, the opposite partyno.3, A.D.M., Angul instead of conducting enquiry about correctness of allegations has referred the matter before the opposite party no.4 i.e. Sub - Collector to convene selection committee meeting, placed all relevant facts and finding who will take final decision as per the government guideline. It has been stated that once selection has been completed and engagement order has been issued, selection committee became functus officio to proceed with the selection when the same was not cancelled by the appellate authority. Opposite party no.4 has convened meeting of selection committee behind back of the petitioner on 14.12.2015 and took decision that the petitioner is not eligible to continue as Anganwadi Centre in question. In view of the decision taken by the selection committee on14.12.2015, opposite party no.5, C.D.P.O., has issued disengagement order against the petitioner vide letter No.612 dated 22.12.2015.