2012 Supreme(Ori) 41
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
ARUNA SURESH, J
Swayamprava Mohanty – Petitioner
Versus
Sub-Collector, Bhadrak & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4260 of 2010
Decided On: 25.1.2012
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner:Mr. M. Khuntia. Advocate.
For Respondents:Mr. S. Das Addl. Government, Mr. B. Pujari. Advocate.
The court established that the General Administration Department resolution does not apply to the selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers, as they are not government servants.
Headnote:
Physically Handicapped - Selection and Appointment of Anganwadi Worker - O.R.V. Act 1975, Employment Exchange Act 1959 - General Administration Department resolution dated 13.2.2006
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the selection of Respondent No.3 for the post of Anganwadi Worker, claiming that the respondent was ineligible due to visual impairment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was not decided, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the engagement of Respondent No.3 was in accordance with the rules and guidelines, and the petitioner's claim of being more meritorious was baseless.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of Respondent No.3 for the post of Anganwadi Worker due to visual impairment and the application of the General Administration Department resolution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the General Administration Department resolution dated 13.2.2006 cannot be enforced for the selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers, as they are not government servants. The engagement of Respondent No.3 was found to be legal and valid.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the engagement of Respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Worker was upheld.
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J
1. Child Development Project Officer, Dhamnagar issued an advertisement on 21.11.2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Anganwadi Worker to be engaged at Govindagadia Anganwadi Centre. Petitioner submitted her application for consideration for engagement for the said post. However, Sasmita Rout, Respondent No.3 was selected by giving her extra 5 marks for being visually handicapped persons with 42% disability. Aggrieved by the selection of Respondent No.3 Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (Annexure-5) challenging selection of Respondent No.3 on the ground that she was ineligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker as she fell in the physically handicapped category of blind & her approach is against the General Administration Department resolution dated 13.2.2006 wherein no reservation has been given to a visually handicapped persons in the category of Physically Handicapped. However, the said appeal has not been decided. Hence, Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ.
2. Respondents have contested the petition contending, inter alia, that Respondent No.3 was eligible to be considered & engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the category as she was not totally blind & also that resolution of the General Administration Department, Government of Orissa is not applicable to selection & appointment Anganwadi Worker & the selection of Anganwadi Worker has to be made in accordance with the Rules & guidelines prescribed by Women & Child Development Department. It is averred that as per the revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Worker dated 2.5.2007, complaint regarding Section of Anganwadi Worker for tribal rural projects had to be filed before the Sub-Collector as he is the designated Appellate authority & as regards complaints regarding selection of Anganwadi Workers for urban projects, Additional District Magistrate is the designated Appellate authority. Collector is the Appellate authority where the Sub-Collector/Additional District Magistrate has approved the selection, but Chairman of the Selection Committee fails to finalize the list within the stipulated time or if Panchayat Samiti & Municipal elected Bodies have been dissolved. Petitioner has not filed an appeal in accordance with the revised guidelines. However, without awaiting the result of the appeal, she has approached this Court by way of this writ.
3. Ordinarily in such like situations, this Court disposes of Writ Petition with a direction to the Appellate authority to consider & dispose of the appeal. However, since no such direction was passed in this case & the matter has been heard on merits & the petition is pending for a period of more than one & half years, it is in the interest of justice that instead of disposing of the writ directing the Appellate authority to dispose of the representation/appeal, this Court hereby disposes of the writ on merit since a question of law is involved.
4. Selection & appointment of Anganwadi Workers is governed by the Rules & guidelines framed & modified from time to time by the Women & Child Development Deportment, Government of Orissa. Anganwadi Workers are engaged by the State in pursuance of a scheme framed by the Central Government. The State, Therefore, while, making recruitments in such projects in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, may issue guidelines or circulars as it may deem fit & proper. Such guidelines are ordinarily binding on the functionaries working in terms of the scheme including the Selection Committee constituted for recruitment of Anganwadi Workers. Anganwadi Workers are neither appointed nor governed by any statute. They are appointed under the child development scheme framed by the Central Government for appointment of Anganwadi Workers. Anganwadi Workers, therefore, are honorary workers & are no Government servants. They are not paid any salary, but are being paid honourar