SRIMATI CHHABILATA DEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made in this writ appeal to the Order Dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 9008 of 2006 on the ground that the Hon'ble Single Judge did not consider that the Selection Committee, without having jurisdiction to do so, enhanced the marks from '3' to '5' so far as past experience is concerned.

(2.) THE facts, as narrated in the appeal memorandum, are as follows: Both the Appellant & Respondent No. 4 along with some other candidates made applications to be appointed as Anganwadi Workers in the Godi Anganwadi Centre. The Appellant contended that she secured 59.35% marks whereas the present Respondent No. 4 secured 60.75%) marks. The mark was allotted to Respondent No. 4 by taking into account her past service experience certificate in a voluntary organization. In support of her experience, she was allotted '5' marks. Had such '5' marks not been awarded to Respondent No. 4, the Appellant would have been selected as she secured 59.35% marks. The further case of the Appellant was that the authorities did not consider the past experience service certificate with regard to her service in a voluntary organization & no mark was awarded to her even though she possessed the said experience. Hence, challenging the selection of Respondent No. 4 Appellant filed W.R(C) No. 2537 of 2006 which was disposed of on 6.3.2006. In the said Writ Petition, direction was given to the Collector to look into the grievance of the Appellant as per the representation dated 4.2.2006. The Collector was also directed to take a decision whether the selection of Respondent No 4 was legal or not after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. In pursuance of the said order, the Collector issued notice to the parties. Both the parties appeared before him on 11.5.2006. As the Collector did not take any decision within the stipulated time, the Appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 9008 of 2006. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Collector disposed of the representation of the Appellant. In the Writ Petition, the Appellant challenged the selection of Respondent No. 4 on the ground that though she produced experience certificate, the same was not taken into consideration. If '5' extra marks were awarded to her for past experience she should have been duly selected as Anganwadi worker instead of Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 filed her counter affidavit in the Writ Petition annexing the copy of the order of the Collector who initially found that the Appellant had not given an undertaking to produce experience certificate in her application, rather in the column meant for the past experience the Appellant had put a cross mark.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Respondent No. 4 submitted that as per the guidelines for selection of Anganwadi worker, Respondent No. 4 received maximum marks in respect of past experience as she possessed more than 8 years past experience. The Hon'ble Single Judge considered all aspects of the selection. Therefore, interference of the said order is unwarranted and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. He has also filed a Government instructions issued by the Government of Orissa. Women and Child Development Department and further clarified that the erstwhile Anganwadi Helper of the Sub -Centre may be engaged as Anganwadi Worker if she has passed H.S.C. examination or may be re -engaged as Anganwadi Helper if her qualification is less than Class -X.