The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for objective assessment and adherence to guidelines in appointment disputes, and the court's authority to set aside arbitrary orders tainted with malafide due to non-application of mind.

JUDGMENT :

V.Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

2. There is no appearance on behalf of opposite party No.5 when he matter is called.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puri-O.P.No.2 dated 20.01.2022 in A.W.W. Misc. Case No.110 of 2010 (Annexure-1) thereby affirming the order dated 08.05.2015 by which the petitioner working as Anganwadi Helper was disengaged.

4. This case has chequered history. The brief back ground as evident from the pleadings is stated as under for convenience of appreciation of the lis.

On the basis of an advertisement for selection of Anganwadi Helper, a meeting of Mahila Shabha was held on 30.01.2010 in the village Bisimatri relating to Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre. It is stated that in the said meeting there was overwhelming support for appointment of Pravasin Mohanty (O.P. No.5). It is stated that while such meeting was going on a group of people came to the meeting place and created disturbance in smooth completion of the meeting. Hence, as per guidelines it was decided to shift selection to the Project Headquarter. Accordingly, selection at Project Headquarter was held on 23.04.2010 of which due notice was given and in response thereof three candidates, the present petitioner, opposite party No.5 and one Bharati Panda appeared. To test the eligibility of the candidates, the members of the Selection Committee, i.e., C.D.P.O., Nimapara, Supervisor and ANM asked some questions on I.C.D.S. activities and their capability.

5. After preparing comparative chart of performance of the three candidates it came the fore that petitioner had secured 19 marks out of 30 whereas opposite party No.5 had secured 18 marks and Bharati Panda had secured 17 marks. As the petitioner had secured the highest mark she was engaged as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre.

6. Such appointment order was set aside by the Collector on 08.05.2015 in A.W.W. Misc. Case No.110 of 2010 and opposite party No.5 was directed to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre as per office order No. 35 dated 11.01.2016.

7. Assailing the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the W.P.(C) No. 23721 of 2015 and by order dated 30.01.2018 the order dated 08.05.2015 disengaging the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Collector, Puri-opposite party No.2 therein for reconsideration.

8. It was also further observed that :-

“Engagement of any person already in the meantime to the post of Anganwadi Helper in Bishi Matri AWC of Bhodara Grama Panchayat in the district of Puri shall be subject to the ultimate outcome on the decision of the Collector.”

9. On remand opposite party No.2 heard the matter afresh and has passed the impugned order at Annexure-1, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

10. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 justifying the direction in the impugned order confirmed disengagement of the present petitioner and engaging opposite party No.5 as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre.

11. The petitioner has controverted the recitals in the counter by filing a rejoinder.

12. On perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-1 it can be seen that after discussing the history of the litigation, opposite party No.2 the Collector came to the finding that the allegation regarding disturbance in the Mahila Sabha meeting dated 30.01.2010 is an afterthought and as such on the basis of overwhelming support in favour of opposite party No.5 she deserves to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper in Bisimatri Anganwadi Centre and thereby rejected the prayer of the petitioner being devoid of merit.

13. Counter affidavit has been filed by the C.D.P.O.-opposite party No.4 on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 more