IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 361 of 2025 Mamata Samantaray …. Appellant -Versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case :

For Appellant : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. B. Rout, Advocate CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing: 20^th February, 2025 Date of judgment: 25th February, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. Appellant before us is an Anganwadi Worker selected pursuant to order made by the appellate authority being the Additional District Magistrate. The selection was challenged by respondent no.6. Impugned judgment was made in her favour. Mr. Dalai, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for respondent no.6 and Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate, for State.

2. Paragraph-4 in impugned judgment records the facts. The paragraph is reproduced below.

“4. The State-authorities have filed counter, inter alia, stating that though the petitioner was selected as Anganwadi Worker, complaints were raised by the villagers of the concerned village before the CDPO, Pipili alleging that there were some faulty addresses of villages of Nijigarh Khurkhi-1 Center in the advertisement. As such, the selection of the petitioner was kept in abeyance till a decision by the Selection Committee. The next Selection Committee presided over by the Sub-Collector, Puri was convened on 06.04.2013 wherein it was decided to issue fresh notification for the center in question in view of allegations made by the villagers regarding mistakes in the advertisement dated 30.03.2012. It is further stated that the ADM being the Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties rightly set aside the selection of the petitioner and directed for undertaking fresh selection process. It is also stated that as per inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner has already married and her name was deleted in the Survey list of the center, while the opposite party No.6 was found to be a resident of the service area of the center.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. Further facts as appearing from impugned judgment are that pursuant to the advertisement there were two candidates, appellant and respondent no.6. In the selection process appellant was found to have secured highest marks. On scrutiny she was disqualified on not being resident of the service area.

4. On no engagement order issued, respondent no.6 had preferred appeal to the Additional District Magistrate. She also obtained information that the Selection Committee had decided to cancel the advertisement on the ground it was faulty and had decided to go for fresh selection process. It follows, omission to issue engagement order was because fresh selection process, as necessary, was decided. Prayer made by respondent no.6 in her appeal is reproduced below.

“Therefore, it is prayed that the learned Court be pleased to pass order to admit this appeal, call for the records from the Office of the C.D.P.O., Pipili and after hearing the parties allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned direction dated 6.4.2013 to respondent No.l and pass an order directing the C.D.P.O., Pipili for issuing appointment letter in favour of Appellant in respect of Nijigadakurkhi Anganwadi Centre and for this act of your honour’s kindness, the appellant shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

5. The appellate authority confirmed decision on fresh selection process. The process was resorted to and appellant became successful. Respondent no.6 moved the writ Court on prayer to quash order dated

25^th October, 2023, of the appellate authority.

6. Reproduced below are first two paragraphs from impugned in the writ petition order