SMITA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by opposite party no.2-Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 66 of 2010 in Annexure-4 and also selection of opposite party no.4 as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-1 dated 11.10.2010.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that pursuant to advertisement issued by C.D.P.O., Dhamnagar for engagement of anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi Centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat, petitioner and opposite party no.4 submitted their applications. Opposite party no.4 submitted her application on 09.12.2009, i.e., the last date of submission. In column-9 of the said application form, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, opposite party no.4 has given tick mark that she belonged to physically handicapped category. In the list of documents, which was duly acknowledged by the authority on the very same day, i.e., 09.12.2009, at serial no.7(a) a tick mark was given that opposite party no.4 has produced the certificate with regard to fact that she belonged to physically handicapped category. But, the document in Annexure-3 clearly indicates that the District Medical Board, Bhadrak issued disability certificate on 10.12.2009, which was one day after the last date of submission of application form, i.e., 09.12.2009 and, as such, taking into consideration such disability certificate, opposite party no.4 was selected and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as petitioner had secured higher percentage of marks than opposite party no.4, she should have been selected and engaged as anganwadi worker in respect of Thakurpatna Mini Anganwadi centre of Daipur Gram Panchayat, but the opposite parties, by showing favour to opposite party no.4, have engaged her, even though she produced disability certificate on 10.12.2009, i.e., one day after the last date of submission of application form. It is further contended that even though opposite party no.4 had secured less mark than petitioner, but the authorities, accepting the undertaking given by opposite party no.4 and taking advantage of her disability certificate, awarded 5 extra marks to her, as a result of which she could come out successful and was engaged as anganwadi worker in the anganwadi centre in question, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. Though the petitioner preferred appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhadrak in Anganwadi Appeal No.66 of 2010, the contention, that disability certificate was submitted by the petitioner beyond the last date of submission of application, was not taken into consideration and, as such, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2011, which is sought to be challenged in this application. To substantiate the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 AIR(SC) 2011.