MAMINA OJHA Vs. C.D.P.O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

(2.) The case of the appellant Mamina Ojha is that an advertisement dated 08.09.2009 was issued by the C.D.P.O., Jagatsinghpur 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 appellant along with the respondent no.4 Rashmiprava Moharana and other candidates applied for the said post. The respondent no.4 in her application had mentioned that she is physically handicapped and has secured 50.93% of marks in matriculation, whereas the appellant 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 appellant 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 respondent no.4, including 5% extra marks on the basis of physical handicapped certificate, whereas the appellant was awarded 59.13% marks, including 5% extra marks given on the basis of her higher qualification and was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Challenging the selection of the appellant, the respondent no.4 filed an appeal before the respondent no.2. The appellate authority, vide order dated 24.05.2012 disposed of the appeal observing therein that illegality was committed during the selection process and the appellant was illegally appointed, for which her selection was cancelled and the respondent no.2 Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur was directed to prepare a merit list ignoring the higher qualification of the appellant and also the physical handicapped certificate of the respondent no.4 on the ground that the respondent no.4 is physically handicapped to the extent of 15% on the basis of the report of the H.O.D., Department of Orthopedics, S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Challenging the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the appellate authority, the respondent no.4 filed W.P.(C) No.12322 of 2012 and the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.10472 of 2012. This Court heard both the cases analogously and passed a common order on 12.02.2013 observing therein that if a candidate is physically handicapped, she is entitled to get 5% extra mark as per the revised 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 the appellant as Anganwadi Worker by awarding her 5% marks for her higher qualification and issued appointment order in her favour.

(3.) The case of the respondent no.4 Rashmiprava Moharana is that pursuant to advertisement dated 08.09.2009 issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Jagatsinghpur, she along with the appellant and other candidates applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Odiso (Kha)(i) [Odiso B(i)] Anganwadi Centre under Jagatsinghpur Block. She comes under physically handicapped category and is entitled 5% extra mark, whereas the appellant 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. Therefore, the higher qualification acquired by the appellant 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 documents. If the certificate of the appellant with regard to acquisition of her higher qualification is not taken into consideration, then the respondent no.4 is the only eligible candidate, who is to get the appointment as Anganwadi Worker. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Diptimayee Parida vrs. State of Orissa and others , 2008 10 SCC 687.