The court emphasized the right to livelihood under Article 21, affirming that administrative decisions must consider valid evidence and cannot disregard established facts that support eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1.The petitioner in the present writ application questions the correctness of order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Angul in Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2011 whereby, said appeal filed by the present opposite party No.5 was allowed, the petitioner’s engagement as Anganwadi Worker was set aside and the selection committee was directed to engage the next eligible candidate out of the selection list.

2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.03.2010 issued by the C.D.P.O., Athamallik for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Badatikira Anganwadi Center, the petitioner, opposite party No.5 and other candidates submitted their applications. In the selection process, the petitioner was found suitable among all candidates and was therefore, selected for engagement. She was thereafter issued with order of engagement on 25.03.2011 and since then, has been continuing as Anganwadi Worker. The present opposite party No.5 challenged her selection by filing the aforementioned appeal before the ADM on the ground that she does not belong to the Anganwadi Center area.

2.1 During hearing of the appeal, the CDPO, Athamallik submitted para-wise report stating that the petitioner ordinarily resides in village Baragaon and that the Anganwadi Center of Badatikira is within the said revenue village. This was certified by the Tahasildar in the resident certificate issued in her favour.

2.2 The petitioner contends that she and her family are residing within the jurisdiction of Badatikira Anganwadi Center over Plot No. 116/1286 under holding No. 95/70 since 2010. The above fact was physically verified by the CDPO, Athamallik during spot verification.

2.3 The ADM however, directed a joint enquiry to be conducted by the Tahasildar, Athamallik and CDPO, Athamallik. According to the petitioner, the said joint enquiry was not conducted properly and it was stated that the facts stated in the para-wise report of CDPO, Athamallik are different from the resident certificate produced by her earlier.

2.4 According to the petitioner, Badatikira is not a revenue village for which no resident certificate can be issued showing her residence therein, which is actually a hamlet under Baragaon Revenue village. It is further contended that the petitioner’s father-in-law and other family members are residing over Plot No. 304 under Khata No.4, which comes under Baragaon-II Anganwadi Center but the petitioner along with her husband is residing separately from her ancestral family over plot No.116/1286, which comes under the Badatikira Anganwadi Center.

2.5. Though all the above facts were placed before the ADM, the same were not considered and basing entirely on the joint enquiry report, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the engagement of the petitioner.

2.6 Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer.

“Therefore, in view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties and call for the records of Misc. Appeal case No.29/2011 from the office of the Additional District Magistrate, Angul and after hearing the parties may further be pleased to quash the order dtd.12.8.2016 and directed the Opp. Parties to allow the present petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Worker of Badatikira Anganwadi Centre.

And pass other order/ orders, as may be deemed just and proper.

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

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the State opposite parties it is admitted that Badatikira Anganw