[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Aparajita Satapathy vs Revenue Divisional Commissioner…. … on 8 August, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 19236 of 2025
Application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
Aparajita Satapathy .... Petitioner
-versus-
Revenue Divisional Commissioner.... Opp. Parties
(RDC), Central Zone, and Others
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. J. K. Lenka &
J. Pani, Advocates
Vs.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Sethy,
[Addl. Standing Counsel]
M/s. B. Mohanty,
D. Chhotray &
B. Moharana, Advocates
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
08.08.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner in the present writ petition questions
the correctness of order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central Division),
Cuttack in AWW Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2024 whereby the
Page 1 of 14
selection of Opposite Party No.5 as Anganwadi Worker of
Senanda Anganwadi center was upheld.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that an
advertisement was issued on 25.09.2023 by the CDPO,
Dasarathpur in the district of Jajpur inviting applications
from intending candidates for engagement as Anganwadi
worker of different Anganwadi centers including Senanda
Center under Biruhan Gram Panchayat. It was stipulated
in the advertisement that the minimum educational
qualification of the candidates must be 12th pass and that
the merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks
secured in the said examination.
3. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner
submitted her application along with other applicants
including Opposite Party No. 5. On 13.10.2023, a
verification was conducted wherein the petitioner appeared
and produced all necessary documents and accordingly a
list of eligible candidates was prepared and objections were
invited.
Page 2 of 14
4. The petitioner claims that at the time of
verification, she had produced all her educational
certificates including +2 and +3 mark sheets and
certificates. No objection was filed submitted from any
quarter. Out of 16 applicants, the petitioner and 5 others
were found eligible.
5. According to the petitioner, the Opposite Party
No.5 does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi
center, which is evident from the fact that the name of her
husband is Santosh Kumar Nanda, who is a resident of
Nandipur. By wrongly mentioning the name of her husband
as Santosh Debata, she had filed the application, though
there is no such person named, Sasmita Debata, wife of
Santosh Debata residing within the service area. As such,
Opposite Party No.5 was ineligible.
6. In the merit list published on 03.11.2023 by the
Selection Committee, the petitioner though secured the 1st
position with 60.83 points and Opposite Party No.5 secured
the 2nd position with 52.33 points, the petitioner was not
considered on the ground that she had not uploaded the +2
Page 3 of 14
mark sheet in the engagement portal and the Opposite
Party No.5 was thus appointed vide order dated
04.11.2023.
7. The petitioner challenged the selection and
engagement of Opposite Party No.5 by filing appeal before
the 1st Appellate Authority (ADM, Jajpur) being Anganwadi
Misc. Appeal Case No.4 of 2023. The Appellate Authority,
after considering the rival contentions held that the
petitioner had submitted all the original documents during
verification and no objection had been received against her
candidature. She stood in the 1st position and therefore
cancelling her candidature was illegal. Accordingly, the
appointment of Opposite Party No.5 was set aside and the
concerned authority was directed to disengage her and
appoint the petitioner in her place. The petitioner was
appointed on 24.06.2024 and is continuing till date.
8. Opposite No.5 approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No. 12288 of 2024 challenging the order of the Appellate
Authority but by order dated 17.05.2024, this Court
granted liberty to her to prefer Second Appeal. Pursuant to
Page 4 of 14
such order, Opposite Party No.5 preferred Second Appeal
before the RDC, (Central Division), Cuttack.
9. The Second Appellate Authority after considering
the rival contentions and the documents held that the
petitioner had not uploaded her intermediate mark sheet in
the online portal, which was contrary to the stipulation in
the advertisement. As such, the finding of the 1st Appellate
Authority was held to be not correct and that the Selection
Committee had committed no error in selecting the
Opposite Party No.5. The appeal was thus allowed and the
order of the 1st Appellate Authority was set aside and the
selection of Opposite Party No.5 was upheld.
10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this
writ petition with the following prayer:-
“The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays
that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to
stay the impugned the order dated 04/07/2025
under Annexure-13 to the writ petition passed by
RDC, (Central Division)*, Cuttack in Anganwadi
Misc. Appeal No. 4/2024, till disposal of the Writ
Petition.
And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall
as in duty bound ever pray.”
Page 5 of 14
11. The Opposite Parties did not file any counter but
preferred to make oral submissions. Additionally Opposite
Party No.5 filed her written note of submissions enclosing
certain relevant documents. Be it noted that Opposite Party
No.5 had filed a Caveat.
12. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. A. Sethy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
for the State and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for the Opposite Party No. 5.
13. Dr. Lenka assails the impugned order by
submitting that the Selection Committee held the petitioner
eligible and accordingly her name was included in the list
of eligible candidates and objections were invited but no
objection was received from any quarter. Further, the
petitioner produced her original educational certificates at
the time of verification of documents. Therefore, the
Selection Committee could not have cancelled her
candidature on the ground of not uploading the +2
certificate. The Opposite Party No.5 had never objected to
the candidature of the petitioner. On the contrary, she
Page 6 of 14
herself not being a resident of the service area was wrongly
selected by the Selection Committee. The 1st Appellate
Authority therefore, rightly held that the petitioner being
the more meritorious candidate should have been selected.
The Second Appellate Authority, acting purely on
technicalities set aside the order of the 1st Appellate
Authority. Dr. Lenka has relied upon the judgments of this
Court in Bandita Rout v. State of Odisha and Others
[W.A.No.1122 of 2022] and Sarojini Sahoo v. State of
Odisha and others [W.P.(C) No. 4456 of 2024] in support
of his contentions.
14. Mr. Sethy, learned State Counsel would argue
that there was clear stipulation in the advertisement that
the candidates should upload their educational certificates
along with other documents. The petitioner had not
uploaded her +2 and +3 certificates and did so during
verification of documents. The Selection Committee
therefore did not consider her candidature as the same was
contrary to the condition in the advertisement.
Page 7 of 14
15. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for
Opposite Party No. 5 would argue that the petitioner had
not submitted her +2 mark sheet along with her online
application even on the last date of submitting the
application. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.5 had
uploaded all necessary documents. As per information
obtained by Opposite Party No.5, under the RTI Act, the
petitioner had submitted an application on 13.10.2023 to
the CDPO stating that she had mistakenly not uploaded
the required mark sheets along with her online application
and requested for accepting her original mark sheet at the
time of verification. This, according to Mr. Mohanty is in
violation of the conditions laid down in the advertisement
for which the Second Appellate Authority rightly held that
the Selection Committee had committed no error in
selecting Opposite Party No.5. Mr. Mohanty has relied upon
a judgment of this Court in the case of Suravi Bisi v. Sub-
Collector, Sonepur and Others, 2024 (II) ILR -CUT-234.
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and upon going through the materials on record
Page 8 of 14
including the impugned order as well as the order passed
by the 1st Appellate Authority, this Court finds that the
first issue that falls for consideration is, whether the
petitioner had uploaded her educational certificates along
with her online application. In this regard the petitioner
claims to have uploaded all her certificates along with the
online application. A copy of the online application of the
petitioner enclosed as Annexure-2 does not support such
contention. The 1st Appellate Authority somehow
ascertained ‘that the petitioner had uploaded all the
documents along with her online application. This finding
has been reversed by the Second Appellate Authority.
17. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 has
enclosed copy of the information obtained by Opposite
Party No.5 on 28.02.2025 under the RTI Act, which
contains application dated 13.10.2023 supposedly
submitted by the petitioner admitting that she had not
submitted the documents in question mistakenly along
with her online application and requested for accepting the
same at the time of verification. The authenticity of the
Page 9 of 14
aforesaid information under RTI Act has not been
established to satisfaction before this Court. Be that as it
may, fact remains that the petitioner has not been able to
establish with concrete evidence that she had uploaded the
education qualification along with her online application.
The finding of the 1st Appellate Authority in this regard
cannot therefore be sustained. Consequently, the finding
of the 2nd Appellate Authority in this context cannot be
faulted with.
18. Having held as above, the next question that
falls for consideration is, whether failure of the petitioner to
upload the relevant documents along with her online
application can be treated as fatal to her candidature.
There is no dispute that as between the petitioner and the
Opposite Party No. 5, the former is more meritorious
having secured 60.83 points as compared to 52.33 points
secured by the Opposite Party No.5. There is also no
dispute that despite her failure to upload her documents
along with her online application the petitioner’s
candidature was accepted as evident from the list of eligible
Page 10 of 14
candidates furnished by the CDPO inviting objections. It is
common ground that the petitioner had produced the
original certificates/documents at the time of verification
whereupon the list of eligible candidates was published.
So, it is not a case of non-production of the certificates at
all. It has not been disputed by any party that the
petitioner has +2 and +3 qualifications. The marks
obtained by her in the said examination are also not
disputed. So, the petitioner fulfills all eligibility conditions
stipulated in the guidelines as reflected in the
advertisement. The only fault that can be attributed to her
is her failure to upload the documents along with her
online application. This, even according to Opposite Party
No.5, was a mistake and not a deliberate act. Had it been a
case of a person not possessing the requisites qualification
and making a false claim, the matter would have been
different. But this is a case where the petitioner fully
satisfies the eligibility criteria for selection as Anganwadi
worker as per the guidelines. The only violation, as already
stated, is non-compliance of the condition of the
advertisement. Moreover, had the certificates not been
Page 11 of 14
produced during verification but thereafter, the matter
would also have been different. So, as on the date of
verification the petitioner had produced her original
documents/certificates. In the considered view of this
Court, this omission cannot be treated as fatal to the
candidature of the petitioner as it would run against the
spirit of guidelines dated 15.03.2023 which stipulate that a
candidate, to be eligible for engagement as Anganwadi
worker must have +2 qualification. In the instant case, the
petitioner not only has +2 qualification but also the higher
+3 qualification for which she was awarded extra weightage
of marks as per the guidelines. Thus, having fulfilled the
basic eligibility criteria, the petitioner being the most
meritorious among all candidates, deserves to be selected.
The technicalities such as those pointed out by the 2nd
Appellate Authority in the impugned order cannot come in
the way as the same is simply a matter of procedure and
does not affect and cannot nullify the fact of eligibility of
the petitioner.
Page 12 of 14
19. In the case of Surav Bisi (supra), the facts were
totally different inasmuch as the same relate to submission
of a valid residential certificate by the petitioner therein. It
is said case the petitioner had submitted a four year old
residential certificate along with her application and
obtained another certificate during the selection process.
Thus, she could not prove that she had satisfied the basic
requirement of being a resident of the service area of the
center in question for which this Court did not accept the
contention that she was eligible. The present case is on an
entirely different footing inasmuch as the fact that the
petitioner had the required qualification is not disputed at
all and the only objection raised is with regard to non-
uploading of her certificate along with her application. She
having submitted the original certificates during
verification and being included in the list of eligible
candidates, there is no reason to reject her candidature,
more so as she is the most meritorious candidate among
all.
Page 13 of 14
20. From the foregoing narration, it is evident that
the reasoning adopted by the Second Appellate Authority to
find fault with the candidature of the petitioner, being
based on technicality is untenable. The impugned order is
therefore, rendered unsustainable in the eye of law.
21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the
impugned order is set aside. The Opposite Party-authorities
are directed to act in terms of the order passed by the 1st
Appellate Authority by treating the petitioner as the
selected candidate and by allowing her to continue as such.
……………………………
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 8th August, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 10-Aug-2025 11:54:46
Page 14 of 14
[ad_2]
Source link