IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the selection committee's rejection of a candidate based on the age of a resident certificate was erroneous, as there was no legal basis for such a requirement in the applicable rules and guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The order passed by Addl. District Magistrate, Dhenkanal in Appeal (AWW) Case No.2/2017 on 16.09.2017 is impugned in the present writ application.

2. The facts of the case are that the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Odapada (opposite party No.5) issued an advertisement on 21.09.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Besalia-1 Additional Anganwadi Center. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner being a resident of the concerned service area, submitted her application along with all relevant documents and certificates. The selection was conducted by the selection committee under the Chairmanship of Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal, wherein the petitioner was selected. The C.D.P.O. issued engagement order in her favour on 19.11.2016, pursuant to which she joined in the center on 25.11.2016. It is stated that she is continuing in the said center. On 05.05.2017, the opposite party No.6 submitted a representation before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Dhenknal, which was treated as the aforementioned appeal. Such representation was submitted on the ground that the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar on 30.11.2015 submitted by her had not been considered. Moreover, she had secured higher marks than the petitioner and therefore, should have been selected for engagement. The appeal was heard in presence of both parties and by the order impugned (copy enclosed as Annexure-5) the ADM held that the selection committee had committed error in rejecting the candidature of the appellant (opposite party no.6) on the ground that the resident certificate furnished by her was more than six months old. The ADM found that she had secured more marks than the petitioner and further that there was no stipulation in the advertisement dated 21.09.2016 regarding submission of resident certificate. That apart, there is nothing in the certificate to show that it was valid for six months. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the engagement order dated 19.11.2016 issued in favour of the petitioner was quashed.

3. The State opposite party (opposite party No.2) has filed counter refuting the averments made in the writ application and seeking to justify the reasoning adopted by the ADM in the impugned order. It has been further stated that pursuant to advertisement in question five candidates submitted their applications including the petitioner and opposite party No.6, of whom the application of one candidate was rejected as she was a not resident of the service area in question. The petitioner secured 52.63% marks while the opposite party No.6 secured 56.57% marks but her resident certificate was more than 6 months old, for which engagement order was issued in favour of the petitioner. Referring to the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984, it is stated that there is no validity period mentioned for resident certificate issued under such Rules and therefore, the selection committee committed a mistake in ignoring the certificate produced by opposite party No.6. As such, the ADM rightly allowed the appeal.

4. The private opposite party No.6 has also filed counter affidavit. It is stated that she had obtained the resident certificate from the office of the Tahasildar, Odapada on 30.11.2015 which shows that she is a permanent resident of the service area in question. She had secured the highest marks in the selection process. There was nothing in the advertisement that the resident certificate should be within six months preceding the date of advertisement nor there was any provision in the prevailing Rules indicating period of validity of such certificate. Under such circumstances she filed the appeal, which was rightly allowed.

5. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State; and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for private opposite party No.6.

6. Mr