Back
2011 Supreme(Ori) 362
2012 (1) OLR 105
ORISSA HIGH COURT (CUTTACK)
V.GOPALA GOWDA AND B.N.MAHAPATRA
Puspanjali Champati …Appellant
Versus
Sub-Collector, Khurda and others …Respondents
W.A.No. 535 of 2011
Decided On : 01.12.2011
For Petitioner:Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
M/s K.C.Rajguru Mohapatra, B.Mohanty & S.Mishra
For Respondents:Addl. Government Advocate (for R-1 & R-2) Mr. S.K.Das, Sr. Advocate, M/s S.Swain & O.Devdas (For R-3)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear and cogent evidence to prove fraud and impersonation, especially in the context of appointment disputes.
Headnote:
Fraud - Appointment Dispute - [Anganwadi Worker Appointment] - [Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9; Matriculation Examination Qualification] - The court discussed the dispute regarding the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker and the allegation of fraud in impersonation. The key legal provisions discussed were related to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Collector, the requirement of clear and cogent evidence to prove fraud, and the qualification criteria for the appointment. The court found that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the impersonation and set aside the lower court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker, where the appellant alleged fraud and impersonation by the respondent in securing the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the impersonation and set aside the lower court's decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent impersonated the appellant to secure the appointment as an Anganwadi Worker.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the impersonation, and the qualification criteria for the appointment did not include any provision for considering higher qualifications.
Final Decision: The court set aside the lower court's decision and directed the CDPO to appoint the appellant as the Anganwadi Worker.
JUDGMENT
B.N. Mahapatra, J. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the correctness of the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12246 of 2011 in which the learned Single Judge held that the order of the Sub-Collector, Khurda is just and proper and needs no interference.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal in brief are that respondent No.2-Child Development Project Officer, Bolagarh (for short, “CDPO”) has issued an advertisement No.393 dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure-2) inviting applications from the intending candidates for filling up the post of Anganwadi Workers in respect of 46 Additional Anganwadi Centres including Beguniamul Patna Anganwadi Centre. In response to such advertisement, the appellant-petitioner submitted her application form along with required documents with other applicants. On 05.12.2009, the application forms were scrutinised. The CDPO published the name of all the candidates on 08.12.2009 in respect of Beguniamul Patna Anganwadi Centre where the appellant’s name found place at serial No.2 and invited public objection relating to educational qualification, residential status and caste of the candidates. When it came to the knowledge of the appellant that Damayanti Pradhan, the present respondent No.3, who was not a resident of village Beguniamul Patna, has submitted her application for the post in question, the appellant along with other villagers made a representation on 07.12.2009 to the Collector, Khurda recommended by the Sarpanch and Chairman, Zilla Parishad alleging therein that respondent No.3 could be able to obtain a residential certificate from the Tahasildar, Bolgarh even though she is not a resident of village Beguniamul Patna. Pursuant to the said representation of the appellant, the Revenue Supervisor and the CDPO, Bolagarh conducted an enquiry and submitted their report that Damayanti Pradhan is not a resident of village Beguniamul Patna and she has not married to anybody.
3. The CDPO issued engagement order dated 30.12.2009 under Annexure-6 in respect of 54 Anganwadi Centres where appellant-petitioner’s name finds place at serial No.1 as she secured highest mark against Beguniamul Patna Anganwadi Centre. Thereafter, respondent No.3-Damayanti Pradhan filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.2960 of 2010 before this Court making false allegation that Gitanjali Champati has practised fraud and impersonated herself as Puspanjali Champati and applied for the said post by using the testimonials of the appellant-Puspanjali taking advantage of the fact that they are twins. The said writ petition was disposed of 03.03.2010 with an observation that the question which is required to be determined in this case is definitely recording and appreciation of evidence etc. which cannot be done effectively in a writ petition and since there is a provision for appeal in the revised Scheme of guidelines to the Sub-Collector, the respondent No.3 was given liberty to prefer appeal before the Sub-Collector. While the appellant was discharging her duty as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Beguniamul Patna Anganwadi Centre, received a notice from the Sub-Collector, Khurda to be present for hearing of the Misc. Appeal No.30 of 2010 filed by respondent No.3-Damayanti Pradhan. In response to such notice of the Sub-Collector, the appellant and other parties appeared. The appellant vehemently and seriously opposed the assertion made by respondent No.3 and submitted that no fraud has been committed by her as she has submitted all the documents of her own. The CDPO submitted an enquiry report stating that the photograph of appellant attached to the application form does not tally with the photograph of the College Admission Register. Before the Sub-Collector, Khurda, the appellant raised the question of jurisdiction of the Sub-Collector for hearing such appeal as by that time the guideline having been changed the Addl. District Magistrate has been designated as the
