Ahalya Ghadei vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 5 April, 2025

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Ahalya Ghadei vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 5 April, 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 he W.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 said W.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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court