WP(C)/11442/2012 of PUSPANJALI SUNA Vs STATE and ORS. on 21 August 2026

ORDER

21.08.2026

Order No. 19

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition with issue a rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to file show cause, as to why the Petitioner shall not be appointment as Anganwadi worker in village Tamamura-C Centre after quashing the order dated 02.05.2012 of the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Subarnapur within a stipulated period. If the opposite parties fail to file show cause or show insufficient cause, this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to make absolute the said rule and issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs directing the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in village Tamamura-C Centre after quashing the further advertisement vide Order dated 02.05.2012 under Annexure-11, within a stipulated period. And further be pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions deem fit and proper in the interest of justice so as to give complete reliefs to the Petitioner. And for the said act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that in the selection process initiated by Opp. Party No.3 for selection and engagement of Anganwadi worker, Petitioner and private Opp. Party No.4 along with others made their respective applications for their selection and engagement. Petitioner while was awarded with 51.02 marks, private Opp. Party No.4 having awarded with 51.06 marks, she was selected and engaged as Anganwadi worker of Tamamura-C AW Centre.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging the selection and engagement of Opp. Party No.4, Petitioner filed an appeal in AW Appeal Case No.31 of 2010. The appeal was so filed with the plea that since Opp. Party No.4 does not belong to service area, she could not have been selected and engaged.

5.1. It is contended that in the said appeal, concerned RI was directed to submit a report by causing due enquiry with regard to the residential status of both the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.4.

5.2. It is contended that after being so directed, the concerned RI though issued the notice to the present Petitioner on 12.03.2012 under Annexure-8, fixing the date of enquiry to 15.03.2012, but prior to the said date, a report was submitted by the self-same RI for 17.2.2012 under Annexure-9, indicating therein that both the Petitioner and private Opp. Party No.4 are residing within the Centre area. Basing on such report submitted by the RI, Opp. Party No.2 dismissed the appeal so filed by the Petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2012 under Annexure-10.

5.3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since the RI on being directed to cause an enquiry with regard to the residential status of the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.4, issued the notice under Annexure-8 on 12.03.2012, fixing the enquiry to 15.03.2012, the self-same RI could not have submitted the report on 17.02.2012 under Annexure-9, basing on which the appeal was so disposed of vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2012 under Annexure-9.

5.4. It is further contended that even though the RI in his report indicated that private Opp. Party no.4 is residing over Plot No.280, but in fact Plot No.280 stands recorded in the name of one Samaru Behera so annexed as Annexure-13.

5.5. It is contended that since Opp. Party No.4 never resides over plot No.280 and the concerned RI in his report took a stand that Opp. Party No.4 is residing over plot No.280, so recorded in the name of one Amar Singh Tandi, basing on such report, the appeal could not have been dismissed.

5.6. It is further contended that in fact Amar Singh Tandi has got two plots vide plot No.1158 and 183 and he is never the recorded tenant of plot No.280 in Mouza Tamamura.

5.7. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, since prior to conduct of any enquiry with regard to the residential status of Opp. Party No.4 as well as the Petitioner, basing on report dated 17.02.2012 of the concerned RI, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2012 under Annexure- 10, the same requires interference of this Court.

6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since on being directed, the concerned RI submitted the report on 17.02.2012 so enclosed at Annexure-B/3 to the counter, basing on such report, the appeal was dismissed by the Opp. Party No.2 vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2012 under Annexure-10.

6.1. It is contended that since on being directed, the concerned RI submitted the report indicating therein that, Opp. Party No.4 is residing in the centre area, no illegality or irregularity can be found in the impugned order.

6.2. It is however contended that while Petitioner secured 51.02 mark, private Opp. Party No.4 has secured 51.06 mark in the selection process.

7. Similar submission has also made by the learned counsel appearing for the private Opp. Party No.4.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that challenging the selection and engagement of Opp. Party No.4, the present Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.2 in AW Appeal No.31 of 2010. As found the said Appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 02.05.2012 under Annexure-10, solely relying on the report submitted by the concerned RI on 17.02.2012 under Annexure-9.

8.1. However, as found from the record, the concerned RI issued a notice to the present Petitioner on 12.03.2012, fixing the enquiry to 15.03.2012. While fixing such enquiry to 15.03.2012, the RI when submitted the report on 17.02.2012, under Annexure-9, basing on such report, the appeal was dismissed. Not only that as found from the record though the RI indicated in his report that the private Opp. Party No.4 is residing over plot No.280 in Mouza Tamamura, but as found from Annexure-13, plot No.280 in Mouza Tamamura stands recorded in the name of one Samaru Behera.

8.2. Even though a stand was taken by the Appellate Authority that Opp. Party No.4 had made a construction over the land recorded in the name of Amar Singh Tandi over Plot No.280, but as found from the Annexure-13 Series the said Amar Singh Tandi is not the recorded tenant of Plot No.280. In view of such material irregularies, which are apparent on the face of the record and since prior to conducting the enquiry the RI submitted the report on 17.02.2012 under Annexure-9, basing on which the appeal was dismissed vide the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 02.05.2012 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-10.

8.3. While quashing the order under Annexure-10, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.4 and the concerned CDPO. Opp. Party No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

8.4. Opp. Party No.2 is also directed to ask the concerned RI to submit a report with regard to the residential status of both the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.4 at the relevant point of time. On receipt of the report, the matter be decided as directed.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge

Jyoti Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 25-Aug-2026 12:26:37 Signature Not Verified