Orissa High Court
Ahalya Ghadei vs State Of Odisha & Others … Opposite … on 5 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.6453 of 2020
(Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Ahalya Ghadei ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Umakanta Saho,
Advocate.
-versus-
For Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 4
: Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A.
For Opposite Party : Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate
No.5 Mr.M.Pagal, Advocate
Mr. A.K.Behera, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
05.4.2025.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The order passed by the Addl. District
Magistrate (ADM), Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) in A.W.
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 1 of 13
Appeal No.1/2019 is impugned in the present Writ
Petition thereby, the Petitioner’s engagement as
Anganwadi Worker was held to be not sustainable and
the authorities were directed to disengage her.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
Petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Helper in
Durudura Anganwadi Centre under ICDS, Nuagaon of
Nayagarh District by order dated 25.7.2005. Said
Anganwadi Centre was bifurcated and a new
Anganwadi Centre being Durudura-II was created in
2011. The Anganwadi Worker of the said Centre having
been employed in a Government job, tendered her
resignation in the year 2017. The Centre thereafter,
functioned with an in-charge Anganwadi Worker and
the Helper. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner
submitted a representation to the Child Development
Project Officer (CDPO), Nuagaon (Opp. Party No.4) with
request to engage her as Anganwadi Worker of the new
Centre as she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria. The
representation being forwarded to the Collector, the
authorities concerned were instructed to verify the
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 2 of 13
records and to engage her as Anganwadi Worker after
due approval in the Block Level Selection Committee.
The Selection Committee, under the Chairmanship of
the Sub-Collector in its meeting held on 08.11.2018
found the Petitioner to be fulfilling all the criteria
prescribed in the guidelines dated 02.5.2007.
Accordingly, it resolved to select the Petitioner. Basing
on such resolution an order of engagement was issued
on 16.11.2018, pursuant to which she joined on
19.11.2018. The private Opp. Party No.5 challenged
such engagement of the Petitioner by filing an appeal
being A.W. Appeal No.1/2019 before the ADM,
Nayagarh. The ADM, by the order impugned, held that
there is no concept of reengagement or engagement
without selection in case of any vacancy having arisen
for any reason and that fresh selection is to be made.
As such, it was held that the Petitioner’s engagement
was not sustainable in law and the concerned
authorities were directed to disengage her. The
Petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in
law for the reason that the selection committee
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 3 of 13
selected her considering the fact that she fulfilled all
the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the guidelines.
Further, after her engagement, the post of helper in
Durudura-I Anganwadi Centre, previously held by her,
was filled up after a due selection process whereby,
one Sasmita Sahoo has been engaged. As such, the
direction to disengage the Petitioner will seriously
prejudice her and her family.
3. The CDPO, Nuagaon (Opp. Party No.4) has filed
a counter. It is, inter alia, stated that the Petitioner,
while working as Anganwadi Helper of Durudura-I
Anganwadi Centre had applied for the post of
Anganwadi Worker of Durudura-II Anganwadi Centre.
She was found eligible as she had the required
educational qualification, was a resident of the service
area and had completed more than 13 years of service
as Helper. Accordingly, the selection committee
decided to select her. However, as per the Government
guidelines, no advertisement is necessary in case of
promotion of Anganwadi Helper as Anganwadi Worker.
It is also admitted that the post of helper, previously
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 4 of 13
held by the Petitioner, has been filled up by appointing
a distress widow namely, Sasmita Sahoo.
4. The private Opp. Party No.5, though appeared
and participated in the hearing, did not file any
counter.
5. Heard Mr. Umakanta Sahoo, learned counsel for
the Petitioner, Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Amitav
Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the private
Opp. Party No.5.
6. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
would argue that as per the guidelines dtd.02.5.2007,
advertisement is not necessary in case of promotion of
an eligible Anganwadi Helper as Anganwadi Worker.
Since the selection committee found the Petitioner
eligible in all respects, it rightly selected her. The ADM
misread the provisions of the guidelines and held that
the vacancy needs to be advertised. Mr. Sahoo further
argues that the private Opp. Party No.5 has no locus
standi to challenge the selection and engagement of
the Petitioner. Further, the appeal filed by her, despite
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 5 of 13
being delayed was entertained. As such, the ADM,
according to Mr. Sahoo, committed gross illegality in
directing the authorities to disengage the Petitioner.
7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate, would submit that admittedly, no
advertisement was published inviting applications from
intending candidates. The Petitioner had submitted
application suo motu, which was considered by the
selection committee. Since she was found to be
fulfilling all eligibility criteria, the selection committee
selected her. The selection committee, however,
ignored the subsequent guidelines of the Government
that there is no concept of re-engagement or
engagement without selection and that a vacancy
arising due to any reason has to be filed up by issuing
advertisement.
8. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing
for the private Opp. Party No.5, would argue that the
subsequent guidelines issued by the Government are
intended to maintain fairness and transparency and
to give opportunity to all eligible persons of the area to
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 6 of 13
be considered for selection. There being no concept of
promotion, the decision of the selection committee was
bad in law and rightly interfered with by the ADM in
appeal. As regards locus standi, Mr. Tripathy would
argue that Opp. Party No.5 being eligible was an
aspirant for the said post like many others of the area,
all of whom were deprived of being considered for
selection.
9. I have heard the parties at length and have
carefully perused the materials on record. The facts of
the case being as narrated above, do not require to be
restated here. It would suffice to note that the selection
committee in its meeting held on 8.11.2018 under the
Chairmanship of the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh, found
the Petitioner fulfilling all criteria as per the guidelines
dtd.2.5.2007 of the Government in W and C.D
Department. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner was
not eligible. The only thing that has been urged in the
appeal filed by the private Opp. Party is that the
vacancy of Anganwadi Worker was not advertised,
which is apparently is not in consonance with the
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 7 of 13
guidelines issued by the Government subsequently. It
is borne out from the materials on record that the
Petitioner was selected pursuant to which she was
engaged by order dated 16.11.2018.
10. Coming to the question of locus standi of the
private Opp. Party No.5, the impugned order does not
whisper as to if she herself was eligible for being
engaged in the first place. Nothing has been placed
before this Court to show that had there been an open
advertisement, the private Opp. Party would have been
eligible to apply. It has only been argued that she was
an aspirant without highlighting how. The question is,
in the absence of such vital requirements, can the
appeal filed at the instance of such a person be held to
be maintainable. It would be profitable in this context
to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of
Maharashtra and others; (2013) 4 S.C.C. 465 of
which, the following observations are noteworthy;
“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger
cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding,
unless he satisfies the authority/court, that heW.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 8 of 13
falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from
legal injury can challenge the act/action/order,
etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for
or when there is a complaint by the appellant that
there has been a breach of statutory duty on the
part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a
judicially enforceable right available for
enforcement, on the basis of which writ
jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of
course, enforce the performance of a statutory
duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at
the behest of a person. Provided that such person
satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to
insist b on such performance. The existence of
such right is a condition precedent for invoking the
writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the
exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal
right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the
foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction
by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced
must ordinarily be the right of the appellant
himself, who complains of infraction of such right
and approaches the Court for relief as regards the
same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Rungta, Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P.5, Calcutta
Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B.6.
Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P.7 and Tamilnad
Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v.
S.C. Sekar.]
10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising
out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an
advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person
by the rule of law. The expression, “person
aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers
from a psychological or an imaginary injury: a
person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be
one whose right or interest has been adversely
affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R.
Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York and
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India10).
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of
Mumbai, a similar view was taken by this Court,
observing that, if a person claiming relief is not
eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be saidW.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 9 of 13
to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or
the selection of other persons.
12. In 3. Subash Babu v. State of A.P.12, this
Court held: (SCC pp. 628-29. para 25).
“25 The expression aggrieved person’ denotes an
elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be
confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and
comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning
depends on diverse variable factors such as the
content and intent of the statute of which the
contravention is alleged, the specific
circumstances of the case, the nature and extent
of the complaint’s interest and the nature and the
extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the
complainant.”
11. Thus, law is very clear that unless the person
approaching the Court satisfies that he is a person
aggrieved by any action of the concerned authority or
has suffered from legal injury by such action, the
Courts should not entertain any proceeding initiated
at his/her instance. As already stated hereinbefore,
there is nothing on record to show that the private
Opp. Party was eligible for being selected as Anganwadi
Worker. Under such circumstances, her challenge to
the selection and engagement of the Petitioner can only
be treated as an act of a stranger by or a meddler
having no legal right to do so. It is almost akin to a
public interest litigation. In the case of Ayaaubkhan
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 10 of 13
Noorkhan Pathan (supra), the following was also
served;
“This Court has consistently cautioned the courts
against entertaining public interest litigation filed
by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do
not hesitate to abuse the process of court. The
right of effective access to justice, which has
emerged with the new social rights regime, must
be used to serve basic human rights, which
purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore,
a workable remedy within the framework of the
judicial system must be provided. Whenever any
public interest is invoked, the court must
examine the case to ensure that there is in fact,
genuine public interest involved. The court must
maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is
no abuse of the process of court and that,
“ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not
granted a visa”. Many societal pollutants create
new problems of non-redressed grievances, and
the court should make an earnest endeavour to
take p those cases, where the subjective purpose
of the lis justifies the need for it. Vide P.S.R.
Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, Dalip Singh v.
State of U.P.20, tate of Uttaranchal v. Balwant
Singh Chaufalt and Amar Singh v. Union of India
22.)”
12. It is a vital aspect, which go to the root of the
matter, have not been considered at all by the ADM
while entertaining the appeal. Thus, the selection and
engagement of the Petitioner on the basis that she
fulfills the eligibility criteria was most unjustly and
illegally interfered with by the ADM at the instance of a
rank outsider.
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 11 of 13
13. Even on merits, this Court finds that it is true
that no advertisement was issued, which is in conflict
with the Government guidelines and clarifications
issued subsequent to the guideline dtd.02.5.2007. It is
also true that the Petitioner fulfills all the eligibility
criteria, which the selection committee found after due
scrutiny. It is not a case of engagement of an ineligible
person. Under such circumstances, the action of the
selection committee and the concerned authorities can
only be treated as irregular but not illegal. This Court
would of course hasten to add that the above finding is
rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case narrated hereinbefore. This Court, being a
Court of equity is also duty bound to consider the
effect of disengagement of the petitioner only on the
ground that no advertisement was published. She was
working as Helper of Durudura-I Anganwadi Centre,
which has since been filled up. So, if she were to be
disengaged as per the impugned order, it would entail
complete loss of livelihood for her thereby materially
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 12 of 13
affecting her and her family, who are said to be
dependent on her earnings for their sustenance.
14. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the impugned order, not
having taken note of the question of locus standi of
the private opposite party to question the selection and
engagement of the Petitioner, deserves interference.
Further, this Court having found the Petitioner
otherwise eligible for selection, the impugned order
directing her disengagement cannot be sustained.
15. In the result, the Writ Petition succeeds and is
therefore, allowed. The impugned order passed by the
ADM is hereby quashed.
…………………………..
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:36:11
W.P.(C) No. 6453 of 2020 Page 13 of 13
[ad_1]
Source link