The court affirmed the importance of residency claims in Anganwadi Worker appointments, upholding the ADM's findings based on survey evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner, in the present writ petition calls in question the correctness of order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the ADM, Sonepur in AWW Appeal Case No. 21 of 2013 whereby her selection and engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Mursundi-V Anganwadi Center was held illegal and the present Opposite Party No.5 was directed to be engaged as such.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the CDPO, Birmaharajpur for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Mursundi-V Anganwadi Center, seven persons including the petitioner and Opposite Party No.5 submitted applications. The petitioner was selected as anganwadi worker as per order dated 04.04.2013 pursuant to which she joined. Her selection was challenged by the present opposite party No.5 in the aforementioned appeal filed before the ADM, Sonepur, mainly on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center. The petitioner claims that the CDPO, Birmaharajpur in her report dated 19.10.2015 stated that the petitioner has been residing in the service area of the anganwadi center. However, the ADM, in the impugned order, relying on the survey report submitted by the CDPO as well as report submitted by the Observer found that the petitioner is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center and accordingly allowed the appeal. The other two candidates, namely, Mamina Gartia and Chandrakanti Mishra having relinquished their claims, the Opposite Party No.5 being the next suitable candidate was directed to be engaged after disengagement of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the finding of the ADM is erroneous. The survey report does not correctly show the residential status of the petitioner and basing on the residence of her father-in-law, from whom she has separated, it was wrongly held that she is a resident of Mursundi-II Anganwadi Center area. Furthermore, the enquiry regarding residence was conducted behind her back. The petitioner further claims that having separated from her father-in-law, she has been residing with her husband in a rented house in the service area of Mursundi- V Anganwadi Center in a rented house belonging to Kishore Chandra Kheti. On the above facts basically, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

“The petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow the petition, grant stay of operation of order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur in A.W.W. Appeal No. 21 of 2013 under annexure-2 pending adjucation of the writ petition and pass such other further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper.”

3. Stand of the State as reflected in the counter affidavit filed is that the petitioner, though separated from her father-in-law was residing with her husband in Mursundi-II AWC area at the time of submission of application. The Opposite Party No.4 had objected to the candidature of the petitioner but the then CDPO, violating the guidelines had appointed the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. The service area report clearly shows that she is residing in Mursundi-II anganwadi center area. Further, she had attended the inquiry and admitted that she has been residing in Mursundi-II center area and also of receiving all services relating to ICDS from the Mursundi-II anganwadi center.

4. The stand of the private opposite party is more similar to the stand of the State. Additionally, it is contended that the petitioner has obtained false declaration from the Ward Member and Kishore Chandra Kheti just to show her residence within Mursundi-V angandwadi center area, which canno