IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.3863 of 2025

Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of

India.

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

Kuni Mohapatra …… Petitioner

- Versus –

State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

_____________________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : M/s. J.R. Dash, K.L. Dash,

Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. N. Patnaik

[Addl. Government Advocate] M/s. S. Mishra & P. Behera

Advocates

___________________________________________________________

CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

16.01.2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by order

dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Additional District

Magistrate (ADM), Subarnapur in AWW Appeal No.2 of 2015 whereby said appeal, filed by the petitioner was rejected.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that on 27.01.2010, the CDPO, Ulunda issued an advertisement for engagement of Anganwadi Workers of different centers including Lehedi-2 anganwadi center. The petitioner and others, including opposite party Nos.5 and 6 applied pursuant to such advertisement. In the selection process which followed, opposite party No.6 was selected. Said selection was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.16800 of 2010, which was disposed of on 21.02.2011 directing the Sub-Collector, Birmaharajpur to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The Sub- Collector treated the representation as an appeal being registered as ICDS Appeal Case No.2 of 2011 and disposed of the same on 08.07.2011 directing the CDPO to award extra marks to the petitioner on account of her disability. The CDPO however did not implement such order and again selected opposite party No.6 for which the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.8100 of 2014. The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on 25.04.2014 granting liberty to file further appeal. Accordingly, Appeal No.2 of 2015 was filed. Since the ADM found that the opposite party No.6 had been illegally selected, he directed her disengagement and remanded the matter to the selection committee to engage the petitioner observing all formalities. Opposite party No. 6 challenged the order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.9957 of 2015. This Court, finding that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with, remanded the matter vide order dated 29.04.2024 for re-hearing of the appeal. The appeal was thereafter heard and disposed of by the impugned order.

According to the petitioner, she having secured more marks than opposite party No. 6 ought to have been engaged. Opposite party No. 6 was engaged only on the basis of her experience which is not permissible. In any case, opposite party No.6 not having continued as an Organizer/Helper could not have been appointed. Since there was no provision for engagement of Organizer in the ICDS program since 1975, the so called engagement of the opposite party No. 6 as such also cannot be treated as valid. On such facts the petitioner prays for quashment of the impugned order and for a direction to the authorities to appoint her as Anganwadi worker.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State- opposite parties. It is inter alia stated that originally the physical disability certificate of the petitioner was not produced before the selection committee for which marks in such regard could not be added in her favour while preparing the merit list. The opposite party No.6, despite securing less marks than the petitioner was engaged as she had more than five years experience as Organizer. She was engaged and received honorarium as organizer from January, 2001 to May, 2007 which is reflected in the cash book of Ulunda ICDS. Taking into consideration the above fact, she was selected and such selection is in consonance with the relevant guidelines.

4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the private opposite party No.6. It is stated that the opposite party No.6 satisfied all the eligibili