SABITA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein the order dated 31.12.2014 passed by the SubCollector, Bhadrak in AW Misc. Appeal No.07 of 2014 is under challenge.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that in pursuant to the advertisement published for selection of Anganwadi Worker for Kumarpur, Majhisahi-I, she along with the opposite party no.4 and others had participated in the selection process.

(3.) While, on the other hand, learned counsel State-opposite parties no.1 to 3 as also the opposite party no.4 have vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that as per the report submitted by the Child Development Project Officer, Basudevpur, parawise comments and survey report, it has been found that the petitioner although is residing in the Village-Kumarpur, Majhisahi, but under the said village, there are two Centres in the name of Majhisahi-I and Majhisahi-II. The advertisement has been published for engaging Anganwadi Centre for Kumarpur, Majhisahi-I. The selection has to be made in pursuant to the guideline dated 2.5.2007 issued by the Women & Child Development, Government of Odisha which pertains the eligibility condition of possessing a candidate to be a resident of the native area where the Centre is located which subsequently been found that the petitioner is not residing in the aforesaid Centre area as per the survey report. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector, after going through the inquiry report, survey report and the parawise comments, has passed the order holding the selection and engagement of the petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid guideline and, accordingly, set aside the engagement order.