The court emphasized that adherence to specific geographic eligibility criteria is essential for engagement under government schemes, and errors in defining service areas can invalidate selections.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, seeks to quash order dated 04.06.2016 at Annexure-15 passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in AWW Misc. Appeal Case No. 88/2010 and declare that she is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, as she belonged to ward no. 15 and had secured highest marks, with all consequential benefits.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Project, Kanas issued an advertisement on 26.03.2010 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of the post of Anganwadi Worker in additional Anganwadi Centre, namely, Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre of ward no. 15 comprising from house of Antaryami Parida to house of Bhagirathi Parida, along with other Anganwadi Centers of Badal Grama Panchayat. Pursuant thereto, for Alipada-2 Anganwadi Center, the petitioner and opposite party no.7- Sima Sahoo applied. The list of eligible candidates was published on 16.04.2010 in Annexure-2 inviting objections. The list so prepared was made final, as no objection was received. Pursuant to such eligibility list prepared by the authority in Annexure-2 dated 16.04.2010, opposite party no.7 was selected.

2.1 Aggrieved by the above selection, the petitioner preferred AWW Misc. Appeal Case No. 88/2010 before the Sub-Collector, Puri. During its pendency, alleging inaction of the authority in disposal of the said appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 8270 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2010 directing the Sub- Collector, Puri to decide the grievance of the petitioner on merit. In pursuance thereof, the Sub-Collector rejected AWW Misc. Appeal No. 88 of 2010, vide order dated 16.09.2014, on the basis of the report of the Child Development Project Officer dated 26.07.2013 and joint report dated 01.03.2014 of the Tahasildar, Kanas and BDO, Kanas, by holding that the residence of the petitioner does not come under the operational area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre. Consequentially, engagement order was issued in favour of opposite party no.7 on 15.10.2014.

2.2 Challenging order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri in Annexure-5, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 19469 of 2014 and this Court, vide order dated 02.11.2015, by holding that though in the joint enquiry report (as annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party-State) reference has been made regarding residential status of the petitioner, but no reference has been made regarding residential status of opposite party no.7, remitted back the matter to opposite party no.4-Sub-Collector, Puri to pass fresh order by adjudicating the issue relating to the residential status of the petitioner vis-à-vis opposite party no.7 by calling for a fresh report from the District Social Welfare, Puri, who would submit the same after proper verification of their residential status and, if required, by conducting spot verification, and to complete the entire exercise within six weeks. On being called upon, the District Social Welfare, Puri submitted a report stating that neither the house of the petitioner nor opposite party no.7 is coming under the jurisdiction of service area of Alipada-2 Anganwadi Centre, i.e. Ward No. 15, as per the notification for engagement of Anganwadi Worker and service area approved in BLCC meeting held on 31.12.2009. On the basis of such report, the order impugned was passed that the claim of the peti