RASHMIPRAVA MOHARANA Vs. SUB-COLLECTOR, JAGATSINGHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ application seeks to quash the order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Jagatsinghpur- opposite party no.2 in Annexure-7, by which the appointment of opposite party no.3 has been confirmed in compliance of order dated 12.03.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012, and further to issue direction to opposite parties no. 1 and 2 to engage her as Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha) (i) Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that advertisement dated 08.09.2009 was issued by the C.D.P.O., Jagatsinghpur- opposite party no.2 inviting applications from the eligible women candidates for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in various Anganwadi Centers, including Odiso (Kha)(i) Anganwadi Centre, under Jagatsinghpur Block. The petitioner, along with opposite party no.3, and other candidates applied for the said post. The petitioner in her application had mentioned that she is physically handicapped and has secured 50.93 % of marks in matriculation, whereas the opposite party no.3 had mentioned her qualification as matriculation and she has secured 54.01 % of marks. At the time of submission of application form or verification of documents, the opposite party no.3 had neither mentioned nor submitted any document with regard to her higher qualification but only during the period of objection, i.e. from 12.10.2009 to 19.10.2009, she produced the documents with regard to her qualification i.e. +2 Arts pass. During the process of selection, the selection committee awarded 55.93 % marks to the petitioner, including 5% extra marks on the basis of physical handicapped certificate, whereas the opposite party no.3 was awarded 59.13% marks, including 5% extra marks given for higher qualification and was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Challenging the selection, of opposite party no.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before opposite party no.1. The appellate authority, vide order dated 24.05.2012, disposed of the appeal observing therein that illegality was committed during the selection process and opposite party no.3 was illegally appointed, for which her selection was cancelled and opposite party no.1 was directed to prepare a merit list ignoring the higher qualification of opposite party no.3 and also the physical handicapped certificate of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 15 % on the basis of the report of the HOD, Department of Orthopedic, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Challenging the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 12322 of 2012 and the opposite party no.3 filed W.P.(C) No. 10472 of 2012. This Court heard the matter analogously and passed a common order on 12.02.2013 observing that if a candidate is physically handicapped she is entitled to 5% extra mark as per the above guidelines and the selection committee has to follow the guidelines. The order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and the selection committee was directed to issue engagement order in favour of the candidate having possessed higher percentage of marks. In pursuance of the order dated 12.02.2013, the selection committee selected opposite party no.3 as Anganwadi Worker by awarding her 5% marks for her higher qualification and issued appointment order in her favour. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to advertisement dated 08.09.2009 issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Jagatsinghpur, the petitioner along with opposite party no.3 and other candidates applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha) (i) [Odiso B(i)] Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block. The petitioner is a physical handicapped category person and is entitled 5% extra mark, whereas opposite party no.3 had produced the certificate for acquisition of her higher qualification only at the time of scrutiny and thus she is not entitled to get 5% extra mark, as she has not produced such certificate at the time of submission of her application. Thereby, the higher qualification acquired by opposite party no.3 and the certificate produced thereof at the time of scrutiny could not have been taken into consideration, as the last date of submission of application was over and at the time of scrutiny the authority could not have entertained such application. If the certificate of opposite party no.3, with regard to acquisition of her higher qualification is not taken into consideration, then the petitioner is the only eligible candidate, who is to get the appointment as Anganwadi Worker. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Diptimayee Parida v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 10 SCC 687