Advocates:
['PARESH KU SAHOO', 'S K BHANJADEO', '', 'R K MUDULI']

WA No.64 of 2013

Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No.64 of 2013

Bilasini Behera

&.

Appellant

-versus-

ADM-cum-Appellate Authority,

Nuapada and others

&.

Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For the Appellant

:

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, Advocate

For the Respondents

:

Mr. Ishwar Mohanty

Addl. Standing Counsel

(For the State)

Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo,

Advocate

(For Respondent No.3)

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

JUDGMENT

15.09.2022

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. The Appellant having unsuccessfully challenged an order dated

31^st March 2011, passed by the Additional District Magistrate-

cum-Appellate Authority, Nuapada (ADM) in Appeal Case No.11

of 2010 whereby her engagement as Anganwadi Worker (AWW)

in the Runibasa-II Anganwadi Centre (AWC) was set aside, with

the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.10723 of 2011 by the learned Single

WA No.64 of 2013

Page 2 of 5

Judge by the impugned order dated 6^th March 2013, has

approached this Court with the present appeal.

2. The background facts are that the Child Development Project

Officer (CDPO), Boden in the District of Nuapada (Respondent

No.2) issued an advertisement dated 5^th December 2009 for

engagement of an AWW in respect of the Runibasa AWC. The

present Appellant and five others including Respondent No.3-

Geetanjali Behera applied for the said post. As per the selection

process, the present Appellant-Bilasini Behera and Respondent

No.3-Geetanjali Behera came within the zone of consideration

since both belonged to the AWC area. According to the

Appellant, since she secured more marks than Respondent No.3,

she was selected.

3. Challenging the selection of the present Appellant, Respondent

No.3 filed an appeal before the ADM. The First Appellate

Authority, on perusal of the records, found that whereas the

Appellant had scored 49 marks, Respondent No.3 had scored 50.

In the remarks column, it was mentioned against the name of the

Appellant, "out of AWC area". The ADM, therefore, set aside the

engagement of the present Appellant as AWW and a direction

was given to the CDPO to issue an engagement order in favour of

Respondent No.3 as the AWW for Runibasa-II AWC.

4. Challenging the above order of the ADM, the Appellant filed

W.P.(C) No.10723 of 2011. In response to the petition, it was

contended by both the ADM as well as the CDPO that only the

WA No.64 of 2013

Page 3 of 5

Appellant and Respondent No.3 belonged to the AWC area. The

said writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single

Judge, who noted that the ADM had noted that the survey report

prepared and which was relied upon by the CDPO to determine

the residence of the Applicants was not prepared as per the

guidelines of the Government issued in the Women & Child

Development (W & CD) Department, Orissa or even approved by

the CDPO.

5. The learned Single Judge noted that since the survey report was

not accepted and on that basis, the present Appellant had been

selected, the said selection was rightly set aside by the ADM and

a direction had been correctly issued to the CDPO to issue an

engagement order in favour of Respondent No.3. The learned

Single Judge, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition by the

impugned order dated 6^th March 2013 and thereby also vacating

the status quo order in favour of the present Appellant passed on

21^st April, 2011.

6. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant

urged that since Respondent No.3 was not residing in the AWC

area, her candidature was rightly rejected. It was submitted that

the guidelines dated 2^nd May 2007 as amended on 9^th April 2010

makes it imperative for the candidate to belong to the AWC area.

According to the Appellant, the guidelines of the W & CD

Department do not require approva