The court established that a candidate from the same village is eligible for Anganwadi worker engagement if no suitable residents from the service area apply, emphasizing adherence to government guidelines and clarifications.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This matter was listed for admission yet on consent of parties, same is taken up for final disposal.

2. This is the fourth journey of the petitioner to this Court for redressal of her grievance .The facts of the case are that as per the advertisement issued on 07.02.2009 by the CDPO, Dhankauda for engagement of Anganwadi workers, the petitioner submitted her application in respect of Ambaghura Anganwadi Centre under Pandiapali revenue village. She was duly selected in the selection process and was engaged as Anganwadi worker vide order dated 11.06.2009 of the CDPO. While continuing as such, the Collector, Sambalpur, vide order dated 03.08.2009 directed her disengagement on the allegation of some outsiders to the effect that she does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. Said order was followed by order dated 10.08.2009 of the CDPO formally disengaging her. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector before this Court in W.P(C) No. 12166 of 2009. This Court by order dated 20.08.2009, quashed the impugned order and directed the Collector to rehear the matter after granting opportunity of hearing. The petitioner appeared before the Collector and put forth her submission but the Collector; by order dated 24.03.2010 reiterated his earlier order. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 7749 of 2010 wherein, vide order dated 13.03.2023 the order of the Collector was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Collector for hearing. The Sub-Collector heard the matter and rejected the petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 03.07.2023. The petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C). No.18126 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 10.01.2025 quashed the order of the Sub-Collector and remitted the matter for consideration afresh. As such, the matter was heard again by the Sub-Collector but by order dated 08.08.2025, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

“Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to-

(i) to Admit the writ application;

(ii) Call for record;

(iii) Issue Rule nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the order of disengagement order dated 10.08.2009 of the C.D.P.O under Annexure-5 in respect of petitioner only and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector under Annexure-13 shall not be quashed.

(iv) And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2009 of the C.D.P.O. under Annexure- 5 in respect of petitioner only and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Collector under Annexure-13.

(v) And issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Workers in Ambaghura Anganwadi Centre under C.D.P.O. Dhankauda in the District of Sambalpur in terms of appointment order dated 11.06.2009 by regularizing the service of the petitioner for all consequential benefit purpose. And this Hon’ble Court may pass any other order/orders as would be deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court;

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

3. Heard Mr. D.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State.

4. Mr. Mohapatra would argue that the guidelines dated 02.05.2007 permit a resident of the same village to apply for selection as Anganwadi Worker. In the instant case, no person from the service area had applied for engagement. Therefore, the petitioner wa