GITANJALI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B.K. Nayak-3, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite party nos.1 to 4-State. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel for the private opposite party no.5, there is no appearance when the matter is taken up for hearing.

(2.) This writ petition involves a challenge to the nonconsideration of opposite party no.5 in the post of Anganwadi worker and the order of dismissal of appeal at the instance of the petitioner vide Annexure-9.

(3.) Challenging the impugned actions vide Annexures-6 and 9, Shri Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court to the clause contained in the advertisement appearing at page-11 of the brief, submitted that for the consideration of a person for the post of Anganwadi worker, the requirement is one must be a permanent resident of the area belonged the Anganwadi Centre in question. Further, taking this Court to the joint enquiry conducted involving the residentship of the petitioner, particularly taking to this Court to the joint enquiry report at page-20 and 21 of the brief, Shri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the fact finding involving the joint enquiry report at Annexure-4 establishing the petitioner has a house within the jurisdiction of Balabhadrapur Anganawadi Centre-2, the Anganawadi Centre involved herein and further taking this Court to the Resident Certificate granted in favour of the petitioner, Shri Nayak contended that for the materials available establishing that the petitioner is a resident of the Anganawadi Centre involved, the consideration of the authority at the first instance while considering the candidature of the different persons as well as the order of the appellate authority went contrary to the materials available on record. Referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Babita Pattanayk vrs. State of Orissa and others, 2014 1 OrissaLR 427, Shri Nayak, learned counsel also taking this Court to the discussions in the said decisions and the observations therein, submitted that the petitioner has the support of the case referred to hereinabove. It is under the circumstances, Shri Nayak, learned counsel prayed for interference of this Court in the impugned actions at Annexures-6 and 9 and thereby directing for appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in the Anganawadi Centre involved herein.