Orissa High Court
Sujata Rout vs State Of Orissa And Others ...... ... on 26 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 388
Author: S.N.Prasad
Bench: S.N.Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No.9080 of 2003
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
---------
Sujata Rout ...... Petitioner
- Versus-
State of Orissa and others ...... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr.Chitaranjan Pattnaik
For Opp.Parties : Additional Government Advocate
M/s S.C.Panda, M.R.Pradhan ( for O.P.No.5)
---------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.N.PRASAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 26.7.2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.N.Prasad,J. This writ petition is for questioning the order of appointment
made in favour of the opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker in Nagena
Anganwadi Centre, Gandia Block in the district of Dhenkanal.
2. Brief facts of the case is that pursuant to the notice dated
30.10.2002 inviting application for consideration of candidatures for
engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Nagena Anganwadi Centre, the petitioner,
the opposite party no.5 and others participated in the selection process. The
selection process has commenced on the basis of the guideline dated
30.11.1998. Procedure for selection has been provided therein along with
eligibility conditions. The procedure of selection has been reflected at para-8 of
the aforesaid guideline which is being quoted herein below:
2
"Candidates who have been included in the panel mentioned above, will be
called for an interview and marks will be awarded to them in the following
manner.
(a) Percentage of marks obtained in the Matriculation examination or
percentage of marks obtained in the written test for non-matriculates as may
be relevant.
(b) 3 marks if the candidate is intermediate or equivalent to his higher
qualification.
(c) 5 marks if the candidate belongs to SC and ST category.
(d) 3 marks if she is married and additional 3 marks if dissolved by a court decree
(i.e. where marriage has been dissolved by a court degree) provided she resides
in village.
(e) Marks to be awarded for experience out of a maximum 5. The experience
relevant for this purpose will be experience in any area of the duties of
Anganwadi worker acquired under a registered Voluntary Organization funded
by State/Central Govt. for this purpose.
(f) Marks obtained in the interview which will be out of maximum of 10 marks.
Note - Marks awarded to candidate in accordance with (a) to (e) shall be notified
prior to holding interview.
(g) The list of the candidates interviewed will be serially arranged in order of the
total of marks obtained under para 8-a to 8-f above and will form the basis for
selection.
It is evident from the aforesaid guideline that selection is to be made on
the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in the matriculation
examination or percentage of marks obtained in the written test for
non-matriculates as may be relevant, three marks if the candidate is
intermediate or equivalent to her higher qualification, 5 marks if the candidate
belongs to SC and ST category , 3 marks if she is marriage and additional 3
marks if a widow or a divorce (i.e. where marriage has been dissolved by a
Court decree) provided she resides in village, marks to be awarded for
experience out of a maximum 5, the experience relevant for this purpose will
be experience in any area of the duties of Anganwadi worker acquired under a
registered Voluntary Organization funded by State/Central Govt. for this
purpose, marks obtained in the interview which will be out of maximum of 10
marks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has
submitted her application along with experience certificate showing her
experience worked in Nabasi Seva Sansada as under Annexure-3. The
selection committee has considered the candidature of one and the other
candidates and on scrutiny the candidature of the petitioner as also opposite
3
party no.5 has been found to be proper, accordingly they have been directed to
face interview which was held on 3.3.2003. The petitioner as well as the
opposite party no.5 has been awarded marks as 51.33 and 44.14 respectively
prior to the interview. The petitioner has not been awarded any marks with
respect to experience since the document submitted by her is having no
experience since the said certificate is not acceptable in absence of registration
number who has issued the said certificate since no such centre is available at
Kandhabola, Kamakhyanagar but the interview Board after assessing the
marks awarded 1.4 marks and 8.8 marks in favour of the petitioner and
opposite party no.5 respectively, thereafter the petitioner secured 52.73 marks
and opposite party no.5 as 52.94 marks in total, accordingly on the basis of
the position in total marks, opposite party no.5 has been selected which has
been questioned by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that
experience certificate under Annexure-3 has been obtained by the petitioner
which was registered under the Societies Registration Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the certificate
annexed to the rejoinder affidavit under Annexure-6 issued by the Additional
Registrar of Societies, Dhenkanal submits that the ground taken in not
awarding marks under the experience head cannot be said to justified one for
the reason that the aforesaid N.G.O. has been registered under the Societies
Registration Act and if the authorities would have asked the aforesaid
document, the petitioner would have submitted the same, hence illegality has
been committed by the authority.
Secondly, the petitioner challenged the selection on the ground
that the selection has been done by the interview Board by awarding 8.8 marks
in favour of the opposite party no.5 where as the petitioner has been awarded
only 1.4 marks, hence selection of the opposite party no.5 is unjustified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is
no condition in the guideline to ask the candidates to participate in the
interview and as such the same is unjustified.
4
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State as well as opposite
party no.5 submit that there is no illegality committed in selecting the
opposite party no.5 for the reason that while assessing the marks of the
petitioner as well as the opposite party no.5, the opposite party no.5 has been
shown to be more meritorious on the basis of the interview and accordingly she
has got higher marks in comparison to the petitioner, refuting the argument of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that experience marks ought to have
been awarded by the selection committee on the basis of the experience in
favour of the petitioner, they submit that it was the duty of the petitioner to
furnish complete documents and since experience certificate is to be taken for
awarding extra marks and if the complete document is not available, the
selection committee has taken decision on the basis of the percentage of marks
obtained in written examination and interview, hence the selection committee
has not committed any illegality.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the N.G.O. has been registered under the Societies Registration Act, but
according to them, the said document ought to have been produced by the
petitioner and in absence thereof the selection committee cannot be alleged of
any manipulation and commission of any unfairness on their part as has been
alleged by the petitioner, in response to that learned counsel for the opposite
party-State as also opposite party no.5 submit that on the basis of the
guideline dated 30.11.1998, the opposite party no.5 has been selected by the
selection committee. In view thereof, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is not to be accepted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of
their rival submissions, it is evident that the selection process has been
initiated in terms of the guideline dated 30.11.1998 and the selection process
has been adopted on the basis of marks obtained in matriculation certificate,
experience as also interview.
So far as the marks related to educational qualification is
concerned, the petitioner has been awarded more marks in comparison to
opposite party no.5, but he has not been given marks under the experience
5
head since the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner is having no
registration number and as such the selection committee has gone into its
propriety. According to my view, that if there is a provision in the guideline,
on the basis of possessing experience certificate, the aforesaid certificate must
be legally valid and true in the eye of law. The experience certificate has been
produced in support of the performance of work under the N.G.O. and if the
N.G.O. is having no registration number, the experience certificate cannot be
said to for the purpose for giving extra marks giving privilege over the other
candidates. The petitioner contends that the N.G.O. has been registered under
the Societies Registration Act but it is admitted position that Annexure-3 is
having no registration number and it is settled that the selection committee is
suppose to look into the document which is being produced by the candidate
before it and if the said document at the time of submission of application has
not been produced and subsequently it is sought to be produced, and if the
selection is concluded, it cannot be said that the selection has committed any
illegality.
6. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the
guideline dated 30.11.1998 no provision has been made to conduct interview,
but as would before evident from condition no.8-f of the guideline dated
30.11.1998 there is a provision to ask the candidates to appear in the
interview, hence the contention is contrary to the aforesaid guideline, as such
the same is rejected.
7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the opposite party no.5 has been favoured by giving 8.8 marks in the
interview while the petitioner has been given 1.4 marks, according to my
considered view, when the candidates are being asked to participate in the
interview board, it is subjective satisfaction of one or the other members sitting
in the interview Board to award the marks after assessing the performance of
candidates.
This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot say that excess marks as has been allotted out of the maximum marks
of 10, it can be said that the authority has shown any favour unless allegation
6
of any malafide is alleged, but after going to the entire pleadings no allegation
of malafide has been alleged.
8. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to pass order in favour of her.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
.......................
S.N.Prasad, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 26th July,2018/Palai