RAJASHREE ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by way of this writ petition, seek to quash the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar in Annexure-5, and issue direction to engage/appoint them as lady supervisor, along with other persons as mentioned in the list appended to letter dated 20.08.2011 under Annexure-4 issued by opposite party no.3-District Social Welfare Officer, taking into consideration the option already taken from them, within a stipulated time.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioners are anganwadi workers of different anganwadi centres under Hatadihi Block of Keonjhar district. The petitioners no.1, 2, 4 and 5 belonged to unreserved category, whereas petitioner nos.3 and 6 belonged to SEBC category. Opposite party no.1 issued a letter on 04.10.2008 to all the Collectors to the effect that the graduate anganwadi workers, who have rendered minimum five years of service, would be eligible for appointment as supervisor, and on the basis of seniority, they would be appointed on contractual basis, for which ORV Act and Rules would not be followed. Subsequently, vide letter dated 29.07.2009, opposite party no.1 instructed all the Collectors with regard to filling up of posts of ICDS Supervisors on contract basis from amongst the graduate anganwadi workers. Accordingly, a gradation list of graduate anganwadi workers, who have completed more than five years after graduation, was prepared with percentage of marks, by the District Social Welfare Officer (DSWO), Keonjhar on 11.08.2009 in Annexure-3, wherein the name of the petitioners find place at serial nos.31, 32, 44, 46, 47 and 48. Out of such gradation list, 23 anganwadi workers were appointed as ICDS Supervisor in the year 2009 and four anganwadi workers in the year 2010 and they all are now continuing as anganwadi supervisor in different blocks of Keonjhar district.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of ORV Act and Roaster point 80, while engaging 25 lady supervisors vide order dated 09.12.2011, cannot have any application, therefore, the order so passed by opposite party no.2 cannot sustain. It is further contended that Section 3(d) of the ORV Act, 1975 clearly provides that reservation principles cannot be applied in case of contractual appointments and, more particularly, the resolutions, which have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 2, with regard to filling up of the posts of lady supervisor on contractual basis, clearly stipulate that ORV Act, 1975 and Rules framed thereunder need not be followed. Therefore, the order impugned dated 09.12.2011 cannot and could not have overreached the resolution of the Government and the provisions contained under Section 3(d) of ORV Act, 1975. It is further contended that the petitioners, by securing higher percentage of marks, having been placed in the gradation list as senior to those who have been engaged as lady supervisor by virtue of the order impugned, they (petitioners) should not have been ignored by following ORV Act, 1975, particularly when the resolution which have been issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, cannot be superseded by way of an executive instruction of the Collector. It is also contended that Section 19 of the ORV Act, 1975 has got overreaching effect, therefore, the authority could not have issued the order impugned dated 09.12.2011 by giving engagement to the private opposite parties no.5 to 18, which is de horse the provisions of the ORV Act, 1975 and resolutions governing the field. Therefore, he seeks for quashing of order impugned under Annexure-3.