The court reinforced that administrative decisions regarding the appointment of Anganwadi Workers must be substantiated by clear evidence of residency, emphasizing the necessity for valid inquiries and documentary proof.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the writ petition, admit the same, issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause:-

(i) Why the order dtd.22.04.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Balangir in AWW Appeal No.07 of 2011 shall not be quashed.

(ii) Why the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue as Anganwadi Worker of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi center in the district of Balangir.

If the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule may kindly be made absolute.

And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;

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

2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 24.7.2009 by the C.D.P.O., Belpada in the district of Bolangir (Opposite Party No.4) for engagement of Anganwadi Workers in different Anganwadi Centres, the Petitioner submitted her application for the Anganwadi Centre at Dhumabhata-4. The present Opposite Party No.5 (Sangeeta Budek) was also one of the applicants. The Selection Committee found the Petitioner most suitable among all candidates and accordingly she was selected for engagement. Pursuant to such selection, the Petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker and joined as such on 31.3.2011. The present Opposite Party No.5 filed an appeal being A.W.W. Appeal No.7/2011 before the A.D.M., Bolangir challenging the selection and engagement of the Petitioner on the ground that she is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner contested the appeal. The A.D.M. as per order dated 22.4.2015, basing on the report of the Tahasildar, Belpada, held that the Petitioner being a resident of Mandirpada of village Dhumabhata is not a resident within the service area of Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre. As such the appeal was allowed and the engagement of the Petitioner was set aside. The Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order of the A.D.M., copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1.

3. Heard Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. There is no appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.5 despite repeated calls.

4. Mr. Nanda would argue that Dhumabhata-4 Anganwadi Centre is comprised of as many as 7 ‘Padas’ including Ranapada of which the Petitioner is a permanent resident. In course of the selection process also, her name was found in the Voter List of said Ward and also in the Survey Register. Moreover, she secured the highest marks. Thus, taking into consideration all the above facts, the Petitioner was rightly selected. The A.D.M. has himself accepted that as per the Survey Register the Petitioner is a resident of Ranapada which comes within the service area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. However, basing on a purported inquiry conducted by the Tahasildar, it was erroneously held that she is a resident of Mandirpada coming under Dhumabhata-1 Anganwadi Centre.

5. Mr.A.R.Dash, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, would argue that as per the guidelines, an applicant has to be permanent resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. In the instant case, the Tahasildar, Belpada, conducted an inquiry, which revealed that the Petitioner is a resident of a different service area and therefore, the ADM has right