Orissa High Court
Afr Sarojini Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others ……. Opp. … on 23 December, 2024
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 23912 of 2023
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR Sarojini Mohapatra ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, B. Behera
& A. Panda, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
M/s. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan,
B.R. Sahu & S. Devi, Advocates
[for O.P. No.5]
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
rd
23 December, 2024
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in the present writ
application seeks to challenge the order dated 13.06.2023
passed by the ADM, Khurda in Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 3 of
2017 whereby her appeal challenging the selection of opposite
party No. 5 as Anganwadi worker of Sanahantuad Anganwadi
Centre was rejected.
Page 1 of 23
The petitioner’s case:
2. An advertisement was issued by the CDPO, Banpur
on 31.08.2016 inviting applications from eligible women
candidates for selection as Anganwadi worker in respect of
Sanahantuad B Anganwadi Centre. The last date for receiving
applications was fixed to 22.09.2016. Pursuant to such
advertisement, the petitioner submitted application in the
prescribed form along with all the required documents on
21.09.2016. The opposite party No. 5 also applied pursuant to
the advertisement. The advertisement clearly mentioned that
the candidate is required to submit the application form along
with the copy of relevant documents duly attached and that
after cut-off date, no application shall be entertained. It was
also mentioned that the candidate shall remain present and
submit original documents for verification of the copies
submitted by her along with the application form on 23.9.2016
and in the event, she failed to do so, her application shall not
be considered nor any undertaking in such respect shall be
entertained. On the date fixed for verification of the documents
the petitioner submitted all original records before the
authority/selection committee, which were duly verified and
Page 2 of 23
found to be correct. On the same day, i.e., 23.09.2016, theopposite party No. 5 failed to submit the residential certificate
as per the stipulation made in the advertisement for which in
the remarks column of the Selection Committee proceeding, it
was mentioned that as per Rule the opposite party No. 5 did
not submit the residential certificate. However, finally a select
list was published on 05.06.2017 whereby the opposite party
No.5 was selected as a nerdy worker. Challenging the selection
of opposite party No.5, the petitioner approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No.12546 of 2017, which was disposed of by order
dated 03.07.2017 granting liberty to her to prefer appeal before
the Appellate Authority. Accordingly the petitioner filed
Anganwadi Appeal Case No.03 of 2017 before the ADM,
Khurda. The Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties,
allowed the appeal vide order dated 22.12.2017 by setting aside
the selection of opposite party No. 5 but directed the CDPO to
initiate fresh selection process. The order of the Appellate
Authority was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3072
of 2018 insofar as it related to the direction to initiate fresh
selection process, while the same was challenged also by
opposite party No.5 in W.P.(C) No. 13724 of 2021. By a
Page 3 of 23
common order passed on 14.02.2013 in both the writapplications heard together, this Court set aside the order
passed by the appellate authority on the ground that
opportunity of hearing had not been issued to the opposite
party No. 5 and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority
for fresh disposal. The appeal was thus heard again and by
order dated 13.06.2023, the Appellate Authority rejected the
same by holding that the selection of Opposite Party No. 5
cannot be treated as illegal even though she had submitted the
residential certificate after the cut-off date on the ground that
the same was issued belatedly by the concerned authorities for
which she could not be blamed. According to the petitioner,
once there is a stipulation in the advertisement as regards cut-
off date with further stipulation that no undertaking would be
accepted for submission of any original document the
authorities could not have accepted the residential certificate
submitted by the opposite party No. 5 admittedly long after the
said date. On such facts the petitioner has filed this writ
application with the following prayer :
Stand of the State:
Page 4 of 23
3. The stand taken by the State authorities as can be
gleaned from the counter affidavit filed by opposite party Nos. 2
and 3 is that the opposite party No. 5 had submitted an old
residential certificate dated 24.05.2013 but failed to submit
recent residential certificate. She submitted the R.I. report and
undertaking by way of affidavit to submit the recent residential
certificate within 15 days and thereafter, she submitted her
fresh residential certificate dated 28.09.2016 on 03.10.2016,
which was accepted by the Selection Committee and she was
selected as she had secured the highest mark. The Appellate
Authority found that though there was some procedural
irregularity but no illegality was committed by the Selection
Committee in the process of engagement. As such, the appeal
was rightly dismissed.
Stand of opposite party No. 5:
4. It is stated by the opposite party No. 5 that undisputedly
she is a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center in
question. Pursuant to the advertisement, she submitted her
application along with all documents including the residential
certificate issued in her favour in the year 2013. Since the
advertisement stipulated that the residential certificate should
Page 5 of 23
have been issued six months prior to the date of advertisement,she applied for the same immediately after issuance of the
advertisement but the same was issued only on 28.09.2016
and having obtained the same, she sent it by speed post which
was received by the authorities on 03.10.2016. As such the
delay, if any, is entirely attributable to the concerned
authorities. However, fact remains that she is a resident of the
service area of the center in question and also secured the
highest marks for which she was rightly selected and the
Appellate Authority also rightly dismissed the appeal preferred
by the petitioner. The petitioner never raised any objection at
the time of verification of documents on 23.09.2016 and even
on the date of acceptance of the residential certificate
submitted by the opposite party No. 5. She submitted her
objection for the first time only after becoming unsuccessful in
the selection process
5. Heard Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State and Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned counsel
for the opposite party No. 5.
Submissions:
Page 6 of 23
6. Mr. Mohapatra would argue that the advertisement in
question clearly mentioned that the candidates are required to
file the application form along with the required attested
documents by 22.09.2016 and thereafter, no such application
would be accepted. Further, the candidates were required to
submit the original certificate/documents for verification on
23.09.2016 and in case of failure to submit the same, the
application shall not be considered. It was also made clear that
no undertaking for production of original certificate would be
accepted. The advertisement also stipulated that the residential
certificate produced by the candidates should have been issued
within 6 months prior to the date of advertisement. Admittedly,
the opposite party No. 5 did not satisfy the above requirement
inasmuch as she did not submit the residential certificate prior
to the cut-off date. On the other hand the petitioner applied for
issuance of residential certificate on 15.09.2016 and was
granted the certificate on 20.09.2016, which she submitted
before the authorities in time. The opposite party No. 5, on the
other hand, filed an inquiry report of the R.I. without indicating
as to how she could get a copy of the same, which is an
internal document of the office of the Tahasildar. If the
Page 7 of 23
petitioner could obtain the certificate within 4 days of herapplication, there is no reason why the same would be delayed
in case of the opposite party No. 5. In any case, it is the settled
position of law that the authorities are not vested with any
power to relax any of the conditions of the advertisement
including the cut-off date. In support of his contentions Mr.
Mohapatra has relied upon the following judgments: Ranjita
Naik v. A.D.M, Subarnapur and others1 & Sasmita Manjari v.
State of Odisha & others2.
7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the
other hand would argue that the delayed submission of
residential certificate cannot be attributed to the opposite party
No.5 as she had applied for grant of the same after the
advertisement but the same was issued and supplied to her on
28.09.2016, which she sent by speed post to the authorities
immediately and the same was received on 03.10.2016. The
Appellate Authority, therefore, rightly considered the above fact
and taking note of the fact that the opposite party No. 5 had
secured highest marks, held her to have been rightly selected.
1
2017 SCC OnLine Ori 706
2
2015 SCC OnLine Ori 213
Page 8 of 23
8. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for opposite party
No.5 would argue that the only shortcoming of the opposite party
No.5 was non-submission of residential certificate by
22.09.2016. However, there is no dispute that she had secured
more marks than the petitioner in the selection process. Soon
after issuance of the advertisement she applied for grant of
residential certificate through Sahaj Kendra, which was
introduced by the Government in 2015-16 to act as an
intermediary for delivering hassle-free services to the citizens in
the matter of issuance of caste certificates, residential
certificates, income certificates etc. As per the standard
operating procedure for obtaining residential certificate, one
has to apply before the Sahaj Kendra which will scrutinize the
application and place the same before the concerned
Tahasildar. After endorsement by the Tahasildar, the
application would be transmitted to the concerned Revenue
Inspector (R.I.) for verification. After verification, the R.I. is to
submit a report and said report would be made available to the
Sahaj Kendra. The Sahaj Kendra in turn would deposit the
challan on behalf of the applicant and apply to the concerned
Tahasildar for issuance of the residential certificate and such
Page 9 of 23
date would be relevant date of application as on the said date,
unique application number would be allotted to the applicant.
As such, 8 to 10 days are usually required for processing the
application. The opposite party No.5 submitted application through
the Sahaj Kendra in the first week of September 2016. After
following the due procedure, the opposite party No.5 appeared
before the Tahasildar on 14.09.2016, which was endorsed by the
Tahasildar in the application form and direction was issued to the
R.I. for inquiry, who conducted inquiry and submitted a report
on 14.09.2016, which was submitted by the opposite party
No.5 before the Selection Committee on the date of verification
of documents along with the undertaking. After the report of
R.I. was made available to the Sahaj Kendra, application was
made along with challan for issuance of residential certificate.
Accordingly, the certificate was issued on 28.09.2016.
According to Mr. Pradhan, the delay in submission of the certificate
cannot at all be attributed to the opposite party No. 5 as it was
beyond her control for which she cannot be penalized. Moreover, the
petitioner never objected to the candidature of the opposite party No.
5 at the relevant time and raised the same only after being
unsuccessful in the selection process. That apart, the petitioner
Page 10 of 23
has played fraud on this Court by not disclosing the details of
all the cases filed by her earlier.
9. In support of his contentions, Mr. Pradhan has relied
upon the following judgments:
Kumar Laxmi Saroj & Ors. Vs. State of U.P & Ors.3;
Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board & Anr.4; Narender Singh v. State of Haryana5,
Sarojini Sahoo v. State of Odisha6; Madhusmita Dash v.
Collector, Nayagarh7; Minati Nayak v. State of Odisha &
Ors.8′ S.P Chengavaraya Naidu v. Jagannath9, Ram Chandra
Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors10.
Analysis and findings:
10. In view of the rival contentions noted above, it is felt
proper to refer to the advertisement dated 31.08.2016 issued
by the CDPO, Banpur at the outset. Reading of the
advertisement, copy of which has been included as Annexure-1
to the writ application and is in Odia, reveals that the last date
3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1728
4
(2016) 4 SCC 754
5
(2022) 3 SCC 286
6
2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1247
7
W.P(C) No.-5619/2017 (disposed of on 14.05.2024)
8
2024 SCC OnLine Ori 2472
9
AIR 1994 SC 853
10
(2003) 8 SCC 319
Page 11 of 23
of submission of application was fixed to 22.9.2016 by 5:00
PM. It was made clear that applications submitted beyond the
said date and time shall not be considered. It was further made
clear that on 23.09.2016, the applicants shall remain present
and produce originals of the certificates submitted by them
along with the application form for verification. It was further
made clear that if any original certificate is not produced for
verification on the said date that is 23.09.2016, the application
shall not be taken into consideration and further no
undertaking shall be accepted in this respect.
11. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not
disputed that the petitioner submitted her application in time
along with all necessary documents and certificates and also
produced the originals thereof for verification on 23.09.2016.
On the other hand, the opposite party No. 5 also submitted her
application before the cut-off date yet the same was not
accompanied by residential certificate issued by the concerned
Tahasildar within six months prior to the date of
advertisement. The opposite party No. 5 produced a residential
certificate issued in her favour in the year 2013 and inquiry
report of R.I. certifying her to be a resident of the area in
Page 12 of 23
question. She also filed an affidavit/undertaking to produce the
residential certificate later. It is also not disputed that the
opposite party No. 5 was issued with the residential certificate
on 28.09.2016 and the same was submitted by her before the
authorities on 03.10.2016. So, as on the last date of
submission of application, i.e., 22.09.2016 and also on the date
of verification of documents i.e., 23.09.2016, no residential
certificate as required by the advertisement was produced by
her. The selection was held on 05.06.2017 wherein the opposite
party No. 5 was declared selected as she had secured the
highest marks.
12. The question is, whether the residential certificate
could have been accepted after the cut-off date. At the relevant
time the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 were in vogue. In
the said guidelines the following has been laid down under the
heading ‘Procedure’:
“a) In case of engaging Anganwadi Worker for casual
vacancies or for new in case of engaging in regarding the
Anganwadi Centre where the Anganwadi Worker is going
to be engaged will be put up simultaneously in the village,
in the concerned Gram Panchayat, the Panchayat Samiti,
and the CDPO’s Office.
b) 15 days time will be given to the candidates to apply to
the CDPO along with the documents in support of nativity,Page 13 of 23
educational qualification, caste and any other. The receipt
of the application shall be acknowledged by the CDPO.
c) On the 16th day the CDPO will verify the documents of
the applicants in their presence and will notify the name of
the applicants in her office notice board and at the village,
GP and Panchayat Samiti level. In case 16th day is a
holiday then verification and notification of applicants will
be done on the next working day.
d) 7 days time will be given for filing of objection, if any, by
the community on the issue of nativity, educational
qualification and caste certificate.
e) The selection committee may take 7 days time to verify
the objections received.
f) After the enquiry into the objection and verification of
documents, the Selection Committee will give points to all
the eligible candidates as per the criteria spelt out in the
guideline The Committee will finally select the candidate
who secures the maximum points In case two or more
candidates secure same points, preference will be given to
the older candidate. The Committee will notify the
candidate select on the same day in Panchayat Samiti and
CDPO’s office and within 48 hours at the GP and village
level. CDPO is authorized to issue engagement order in
favour of the candidate selected and this should be issued
within 24 hours of the selection of the candidate.
g) Deleted
h) Sub-Collector will be the Chairman of the Selection
Committee for the selection of Anganwadi Workers both for
rural/tribal and urban projects in place of
Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson of the Panchayat
Samiti/Municipality in case of rural/tribal projects and
urban projects respectively.
i) ADM will be the appellate authority for hearing
complaints regarding selection of Anganwadi Workers for
tribal and rural projects and urban projects.
j) The Zilla-Parishad will be informed through its Secretary
and P.D., DRDA by the DSWO about selection of the
Anganwadi Worker and her engagement as such.”Page 14 of 23
13. It is evident that definite timelines have been fixed at
each stage and there is no provision for relaxation of the same
by the authorities. It is well-settled that unless the
rules/guidelines so permit, there can be no relaxation of the
cut-off date. The advertisement also does not contain any such
clause rather, as stated earlier, it makes it abundantly clear
that the cut-off date is final and shall not be relaxed under any
circumstances.
14. Now, coming to the stand taken by the opposite party
No. 5, this Court finds that all that was contended with regard
to making of application before Sahaj Kendra and the
procedure followed in terms of the standard operating
procedure etc. have been raised for the first time before this
Court at the fag end of hearing of the case. The counter filed by
opposite party No. 5 is entirely silent in this regard except for
stating that she had applied after the publication of the
advertisement but the certificate was issued beyond the cut- off
date which cannot be treated as her fault. No document worth
the name has been filed to substantiate the contentions.
Significantly, the date on which she applied at the Sahaj
Kendra has not been stated at all.
Page 15 of 23
15. On the contrary, letter dated 29.10.2024 addressed
to the learned Addl. Government Advocate pursuant to order
dated 30.09.2024 of this Court has been brought on record by
way of a memo by the learned State Counsel. In the said letter,
it is stated that on verification of online e-district portal
https://edist.odisha/gov.in/edistrict/index.php it is
ascertained that one Rasmita Sahu applied for residential
certificate on 22.09.2016, which has been forwarded by the
Bench Clerk to the Additional Tahasildar on 27.09.2016. The
Additional Tahasildar approved the said case on 28.09.2016
and the online certificate was generated. The downloaded
copies of the application status have been enclosed to the letter
which shows that the application for grant of residential
certificate was submitted on 22.09.2016. It is thus, clear that
the application for grant of residential certificate was submitted
on 22.09.2024 and the same was granted on 28.09.2024. In
other words, the application itself was submitted on the last
date of receipt of applications and was granted within six days.
There is nothing either in the aforementioned letter of the
Tahasildar or in the downloaded copies of the application
status to suggest that any such application was
Page 16 of 23
submitted/procured through Sahaj Kendra as claimed by
opposite party No.5. There is otherwise no evidence worth the
name to support the claim of the opposite party No.5 that any
such application was submitted through the Sahaj Kendra.
That apart, if application for grant of residential certificate is to
be submitted through Sahaj Kendra, then the petitioner must
also have adopted the same procedure. So, how could her
application be procured and the certificate granted so soon,
whereas it was delayed in respect of the opposite party No.5?
This vital question remains unanswered. As regards the report
of the R.I. dated 14.09.2016, no reliance can obviously be
placed on it firstly because, it cannot be a substitute for the
residential certificate; secondly, the downloaded copies of the
application status does not contain any reference to it; and
thirdly, it has not been explained how the same being an
internal correspondence between the R.I. and the Tahasildar
could land in the hands of the opposite party No.5. In short,
the very basis of the so-called report appears to be highly
doubtful. Thus, on the face of such undeniable facts, the
findings of the ADM that the delay in grant of the certificate is
attributable not to the opposite party No.5 but to the revenue
Page 17 of 23
authorities is entirely without basis. Since the advertisement
was issued on 31.08.2016, the opposite party No.5 ought to
have exhibited due promptitude in applying for residential
certificate as was seen in the case of the petitioner. Same not
having been done by her, she cannot claim any leverage for the
grant of the certificate on 28.09.2016.
16. Having held as above, it would now be proper to
discuss the case laws cited at the bar. In the case of Kumari
Laxmi Saroj (supra), the Supreme Court held that if it is found
that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he
cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him. There is
however, an essential difference between the aforesaid case and
the present case in view of what has been discussed in the
preceding paragraphs as regards lack of evidence regarding the
date of submission of application by the opposite party No. 5
for grant of residential certificate before the Sahaj Kendra and
the evidence available on record to show that it was applied for
before the Tahasildar on 22.09.2016. It cannot be therefore,
held that she cannot be blamed for the delay.
17. The case of Ram Kumar (supra) can also be
distinguished from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in
Page 18 of 23
the said case the Supreme Court, relying upon and earlier
judgments rendered in the cases of Indra Sawhney vs. Union
of India11 and Velsamma Paul vs. Cochin University12,
wherein Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A were interpreted and it
was held that the object of providing reservation to SCs/STs
and Educationally and Socially Backward classes of the society
is to remove inequality in public employment as candidates
belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the
candidates belonging to the general category as a result of
centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. On
such grounds the OBC certificates submitted after the cut-off
date were accepted. On facts, the ratio decided obviously has
no application as the lis involved here is entirely different.
18. In the case of Narender Singh (supra) the Supreme
Court took note of the fact that NOC was applied on
22.03.2016 but was issued only on 06.06.2018 and that too,
after intervention of the High Court. But here, there is no
evidence as to when the opposite party No. 5 in the present
case had applied for the certificate in the Sahaj Kendra, if at
all, and the Tahasildar’s letter showing that it was applied for
11
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
12
(1996) 3 SCC 545
Page 19 of 23
on 22.09.2016, the ratio decided in the aforesaid case would
not be applicable.
19. In the case of Sarojini Sahoo (supra) the question
was whether the residential certificate issued prior to six
months before the date of advertisement could be accepted. The
question of relaxing the cut-off date was not an issue there in.
So, the judgment has no application to the facts of the present
case.
20. The case of Madhusmita Dash (supra) is
distinguishable from the facts of the present case in view of the
fact that the petitioner therein had the experience of working as
a Balwadi worker and was selected on the basis of her previous
experience as such, which was in terms of paragraph 5(a) of the
revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007. The issue involved here is
obviously different from the said case.
21. In the case of Minati Naik (supra) the positive
finding of this Court was that the certificate was issued on
05.02.2010 and was also submitted on the same date. This
certificate was issued belatedly even though the petitioner had
applied within time. That apart, the certificate was produced on
the date of verification of the documents that is, 05.02.2010.
Page 20 of 23
In the present case, the application was submitted on the last
date.
Thus, the case laws cited by Mr. Pradhan have no
application to the facts of the present case.
22. As regards the judgment relied upon by Mr.
Mohapatra, it is seen that a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Ranjita Nayak (supra) was not inclined to accept the
plea that as long as the certificate in question was applied for
well within time the mere fact that it was not produced along
with the application but at the time of scrutiny would not
disqualify the applicant. Relying upon an earlier judgment
rendered in the case of Hashisa Begum vs. Additional
District Magistrate, Chatrapur, Ganjam13; the Division Bench
ultimately held that a set of guidelines have been issued by the
State government in the matter of appointment of Anganwadi
workers and it has been made clear that there can be no
dilution of the requirements therein by the selection committee
by relaxing any of the norms.
23. The allegation that the petitioner has played fraud on
this Court by not disclosing the particulars of all the previous
13
W.A. No. 122 of 2015 (decided on 21st September 2022)
Page 21 of 23
cases filed by her in this writ application, this Court does not
consider the omission so vital as to render the writ application
itself not maintainable. Moreover, such omission cannot be
said to have caused any prejudice to the other side, much less
the opposite party No.5.
CONCLUSION
24. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts
narrated above and the contentions raised, it is evident that
opposite party No.5 was guilty of delay and laches in applying
for grant of certificate on the last date of submission of
application form itself and therefore, cannot take the plea that
there was delay in grant of the certificate by the concerned
authority. In any case, there is no power vested on the
authorities to extend the cut-off date fixed for receipt of the
application. Evidently, the ADM has not taken pain to examine
the matter from the above perspective and has rather
mechanically held that whatever delay was caused in issue of
residential certificate can only be attributed to the Tahasildar,
Banapur and not to opposite party No.5. For the reasons
indicated, such finding is unsustainable and according to the
considered view of this Court, the opposite party No.5 was not
Page 22 of 23
eligible for consideration as a candidate for selection and
engagement of Anganwadi Worker. Further, the petitioner being
eligible and having secured the next highest marks deserved to
be selected.
25. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the ADM
is set aside. The opposite party authorities are directed to issue
necessary orders to disengage the opposite party No.5 as
Anganwadi Worker and to appoint the petitioner in her place.
The exercise should be completed within one month from the
date of production of certified copy of this order by the
petitioner. Further, it shall be open to the Tahasildar, Banpur
to enquire as to how the report of the R.I., Galua could be
submitted before receipt of application for grant of residential
certificate and if so, how copy of the same was made available
to applicant and thereafter to take necessary steps in
accordance with law depending on the result of such enquiry.
……………………………
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 23rd December, 2024/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Page 23 of 23
Date: 23-Dec-2024 18:16:02
[ad_1]
Source link