SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Bharati Pradhani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others – Opposite Parties
W.P (C) No. 29452 of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Nihal Rath, Advocate

The cut-off date for residence certificate submission cannot be extended by the selection committee, and selections based on invalid documents are subject to judicial review.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Anganwadi Workers (Engagement) Guidelines, 2007 - Selection Process - The Additional District Magistrate quashed the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker citing late submission of the residence certificate, despite the petitioner securing the highest marks of 80.33%. The court found that the committee acted beyond its powers in accepting the certificate submitted after the cut-off date, thus upholding the ADM's decision only to the extent of quashing the petitioner’s selection but modifying the order concerning the appointment of another candidate. (Paras 1, 13, 15, 16)

(B) Legal Authority - It is well established that the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement cannot be altered by the selection committee, and that any selection made contrary to established guidelines is subject to judicial review for legality. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected based on merit to be an Anganwadi Worker but faced an appeal from another candidate who claimed errors in the selection process regarding residence certification. The ADM quashed the selection, citing non-compliance with cut-off guidelines.

Findings of Court:
The ADM's ruling to dismiss the selection was upheld for its legality regarding the late submission of residence certificate, but the directive to appoint a specific candidate was reversed and instructed to reconsider.

Issues: The court addressed whether the residence certificate should have been accepted after the cut-off date, and what should follow the quashing of the petitioner's selection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that strict adherence to application procedures and guidelines is crucial, and that selection without merit consideration from remaining candidates contravenes principles of fair play.

Result: Selection of petitioner quashed; directive to appoint Opposite Party No.4 modified to re-evaluate remaining candidates for merit-based selection.

Table of Content
1. context of the petitioner's selection and subsequent quashing (Para 1 , 2)
2. opposition's arguments challenging petitioner's eligibility based on residence certificates (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. petitioner's counsel argues for validity of residence certificate (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court’s analysis of the residence certificate's validity and authority limits (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. modification of the adm's order regarding appointment process (Para 16)

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner calls in question the correctness of order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Kalahandi in Anganwadi Misc. Case No.1 of 2021 whereby the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center was quashed and the Opposite Party No.4 was directed to be engaged.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that, an advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Kalampur on 05.07.2021 inviting applications for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center. The petitioner and fifteen other persons submitted their applications. In the selection process that followed, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks being 80.33% among all the candidates while Opposite Party No.4 secured 64.66%.

As such, the petitioner was selected and engagement order was issued in her favour on 07.08.2021. The petitioner joined as Anganwadi Worker and started discharging her duties satisfactorily.

3. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.4 preferred the above mentioned appeal challenging the selection of the petitioner on the ground of late submission of residence certificate by her and that she is not a resident of the Anganwadi Center service area. Said appeal was ultimately allowed by the ADM by the impugned order, holding that the petitioner had submitted residence certificate after the cut-off date, i.e. 20.07.2021 and acceptance of such certificate by the selection committee is in violation of the guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of the Government. As already stated, the selection of the petitioner was quashed and the selection committee was directed to appoint the Opposite Party No.4 as Anganwadi Worker of the center in question.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the writ application with the following prayer:-

“Under such circumstances the petitioner therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the writ application issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties more especially Opposite Party No.2 and 3 to show cause as to why the illegal order dated 27.09.2022 passed Anganwadi Misc. Appeal Case No.1 of 2021 as per Annexure No.2 thereby disengaging the petitioner and to engage Opposite party No.4 in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi Center shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary, and thereby quashed.

And upon showing no cause or insufficient cause the rule be made absolute by allowing the writ application with a subsequent direction to the Opposite Parties more especially Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker of Bandhapada Anganwadi center with all consequential service and financial benefit.

And for which act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. Preliminary counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO, Kalampur. It is stated that sixteen candidates had applied pursuant to the advertisement including the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4. The original documents of all the candidates were verified by the selection committee on 22.07.2021. At that time, it was found that the petitioner had applied by submitting residence certificate of village Gharla issued in the year 2016. When asked about this, she informed the selection committee that she was residing in village Gharla during the year 2016 but from 2018 onwards, she is residing in village Deypur. The earlier residence certificate had been submitted in i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top