Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, J.
Manasi Bisi - Appellant
Versus
Dist Magistrate, Bargarh - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 10016 of 2012
Decided On : 10-03-2021
Engagement - Anganwadi Worker - State of Bihar Act, 1997, Section 2643; State of Bihar Act, 1997, Section 298; High Court of Kerala Act, 2006, Section 395; State of Bihar Act, 1994, Section 126; Punjab SEB Act, 2005, Section 22; Union of India Act, 2006, Section 779; State of U.P. Act, 2006, Section 474 - The court discussed the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and the legality of the decision based on the State of Bihar Act, 1997, State of Bihar Act, 1997, High Court of Kerala Act, 2006, State of Bihar Act, 1994, Punjab SEB Act, 2005, Union of India Act, 2006, and State of U.P. Act, 2006. The court emphasized the principles of preparing a select list, appointment without preparing a select list, eligibility of candidates, and the empanelment of candidates in the select list.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order allowing the appeal filed by opposite party no.3 and quashing the petitioner's engagement as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner was engaged as the 2nd meritorious candidate after the 1st candidate did not join.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the engagement of the petitioner as the 2nd meritorious candidate was justified and legal, as there was no provision barring such engagement when the 1st candidate did not join.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of engaging the petitioner as the 2nd meritorious candidate and whether the decision violated government guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in various acts, emphasizing the preparation of a select list, appointment without preparing a select list, eligibility of candidates, and the empanelment of candidates in the select list.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order that had allowed the appeal and quashed the petitioner's engagement. The petitioner's engagement as the 2nd meritorious candidate was deemed legal and justified.
JUDGMENT
B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by opposite party no.1-Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh in AWW Appeal No. 31 of 2011, by which the aforesaid appeal filed by opposite party no.3 has been allowed and engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani has been quashed.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that opposite party no.2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani, pursuant to which, the petitioner, opposite party no.3 and proforma opposite parties no.4 to 6 applied for. The said applications were verified on 16.03.2011 and a merit list was accordingly prepared. The proforma opposite party no.4 got highest marks, but as she was an outsider and there were some allegations against her, she did not join. Consequentially, the petitioner, who stood second in the merit list, was issued with engagement letter vide Annexure-2 dated 23.04.2011 by opposite party no.2. Accordingly, the petitioner joined and continued to discharge her duty as Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani.
2.1 Opposite party no.3 challenged the selection and engagement of the petitioner before opposite party no.1-Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh by preferring AWW Appeal No.31 of 2011 stating, inter alia, that once a candidate was selected and she did not join in the said post for any reason whatsoever, opposite party no.2 should have issued fresh advertisement instead of issuing engagement order to the 2nd candidate, i.e. the petitioner.
2.2 Opposite party no.1, having heard the petitioner and opposite parties no.2 and 3, vide order dated 18.04.2012 in Annexure-1, came to a conclusion that since no provision was there in the proceeding for appointment of next meritorious candidate, if the selected candidate did not join in the post, the decision of the selection committee violated the government guidelines and thereby committed irregularities in giving engagement to the petitioner, who was the 2nd meritorious candidate, without inviting fresh applications through advertisement. Arriving at such a conclusion, he quashed the engagement of the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani made by opposite party no.2-Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Barpali and allowed the appeal filed by opposite party no.3. Hence this writ petition.
3. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when the first candidate in the merit list did not join, as she was an outsider, the selection committee gave engagement to the 2nd meritorious candidate, i.e. the petitioner. Thereby, the engagement of the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker of centre no.2 of village Tinkani by opposite party no.2-Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Barpali is well justified. It is further contended that even if there is no provision in the advertisement that in case the 1st candidate in the merit list does not turn up, the 2nd candidate will get a chance, but that does not mean, opposite party no.2 or the selection committee is powerless to engage the next meritorious candidate when there is no bar for the same. Furthermore, it is contended that opposite party no.1 should have called for opposite party no.2 to explain as to whether there is any contrary guideline to the effect that such engagement cannot be made and the same being not done, opposite party no.1 should not have passed the order impugned dated 18.04.2012 under Annexure-1 against the petitioner.
4. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate, while justifying the order dated 18.04.2012 under Annexure-1 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bargarh in AWW Appeal No.31 of 2011, vehemently contended that either in the advertisement or in the procedure adopted by the selection committee since there was no provis
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
