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) 982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Fulamani Munda - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.42775 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Partha Sarthi Das, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A, Mr. A.P.Bose, Advocate

In Tribal Sub-plan areas, ST candidates must be prioritized for Anganwadi Worker positions; any deviation constitutes a breach of guidelines.

Headnote:The Writ Petition challenges the order of the Additional District Magistrate dismissing an appeal for recruitment as an Anganwadi Worker, arguing that selection violated advertising guidelines prioritizing ST candidates. The court held that in Tribal Sub-plan areas, only ST candidates should be selected, unless unavailable. The ADM's rationale was found flawed, leading to the order's annulment and the selection committee directed to reassess the appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.4.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Keonjhar (Opp.Party No.3), in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.3/2022 dismissing the said appeal filed by her.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an advertisement was issued on 16.3.2022 by the CDPO, Champua (Opp.Party No.5) for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of different Anganwadi Centres including Barpada Mini Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner and three other persons applied pursuant to such advertisement. Two candidates, including the Petitioner, belong to S.T. category while one belonged to OBC category. Opp.Party No.6, who was selected belongs to S.C. category. The Petitioner’s grievance is that it being specifically mentioned in the advertisement that S.T. candidates would be given preference, the selection committee wrongly engaged Opp. Party No.6 as Anganwadi Worker on 17.6.2022. However, prior to that, the Petitioner apprehending such irregularity, had submitted a representation addressed to the Collector, Keonjhar (Opp. Party No.2), but the same was not considered. The Petitioner therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1565/2020, which was disposed of by order dtd.4.7.2022 directing her to prefer appeal before the A.D.M., Keonjhar. Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred the above mentioned appeal. After considering the contentions raised and on perusal of the factual report submitted by the Sub-Collector and the CDPO, as also on hearing, the ADM dismissed the appeal by refusing to interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee. The Petitioner contends that the selection of Opp. Party No.6 is contrary to the advertisement as well as the guidelines dtd.2.5.2007, which provides that in all Tribal Sub-plan areas, only S.T. candidates are to be selected as Anganwadi Workers and only in the event of non-availability of such candidates, a S.C. candidate can be appointed. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer;

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to;

(i) admit and allow this Writ Application;

(ii) quash the Order, dated 18.04.2023, passed in AWW Appeal Case No.03 of 2022, by Opp. party No.3 by concurrently holding the same as bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and thereby direct the present Opp.Party No.5 to appoint the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Barapada Mini Anganwadi Centre under Uchabali G.P. in the District of Keonjhar for the interest of justice;

(iii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO admitting the fact that in response to the advertisement, four candidates had submitted applications including the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.6. The Petitioner and one Lipi Munda belong to S.T. category, while the Opp. Party No.6 belongs to S.C. category. It is also admitted that the Selection Committee is bound to choose S.T. candidates first, but it selected Opp. Party No.6 as per her merit and not as per her caste and category. Moreover, the other S.T. candidate namely, Lipi Munda had also secured more marks than the Petitioner. On such facts, the order of the ADM was sought to be justified.

4. Heard Mr. P.S. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. A.P.Bose, learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.6.

5. At the outset, the question of locus standi of the Petitioner to challenge the selection was raised inasmuch as the Petitioner admittedly had secured less marks than the other S.T. candidate and therefore, even if her contention as raised in the Writ Petition would be accepted, she would not be entitled to the post, rather the other S.T. candidate having secured more marks

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