Orissa High Court
Sita Jagadala vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 20315 of 2015
Application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
Sita Jagadala .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. M.K. Mohanty, T. Pradhan
T. Pradhan, S. Dash & M.R. Pradhan,
Advocates
Vs.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. A.P. Bose, N. Hota
D.J. Sahoo & P.K. Mohanta
Advocates
Mr. S. S. Dash,
Advocate (for O.P Nos. 1 & 6)
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
__________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
29.07.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner, in the present writ petition calls in question the correctness of order dated 04.11.2015 passed Page 1 of 9 by the ADM, Sonepur in AWW Appeal Case No. 21 of 2013 whereby her selection and engagement as Anganwadi Worker of Mursundi-V Anganwadi Center was held illegal and the present Opposite Party No.5 was directed to be engaged as such.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the CDPO, Birmaharajpur for engagement of Anganwadi Worker of Mursundi-V Anganwadi Center, seven persons including the petitioner and Opposite Party No.5 submitted applications. The petitioner was selected as anganwadi worker as per order dated 04.04.2013 pursuant to which she joined. Her selection was challenged by the present opposite party No.5 in the aforementioned appeal filed before the ADM, Sonepur, mainly on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center. The petitioner claims that the CDPO, Birmaharajpur in her report dated 19.10.2015 stated that the petitioner has been residing in the service area of the anganwadi center. However, the ADM, in the impugned Page 2 of 9 order, relying on the survey report submitted by the CDPO as well as report submitted by the Observer found that the petitioner is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Center and accordingly allowed the appeal. The other two candidates, namely, Mamina Gartia and Chandrakanti Mishra having relinquished their claims, the Opposite Party No.5 being the next suitable candidate was directed to be engaged after disengagement of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the finding of the ADM is erroneous. The survey report does not correctly show the residential status of the petitioner and basing on the residence of her father-in-law, from whom she has separated, it was wrongly held that she is a resident of Mursundi-II Anganwadi Center area. Furthermore, the enquiry regarding residence was conducted behind her back. The petitioner further claims that having separated from her father-in-law, she has been residing with her husband in a rented house in the service area of Mursundi- V Anganwadi Center in a rented house belonging to Kishore Chandra Kheti. On the above facts basically, the petitioner Page 3 of 9 has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-
"The petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow the petition, grant stay of operation of order dated 04.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur in A.W.W. Appeal No. 21 of 2013 under annexure-2 pending adjucation of the writ petition and pass such other further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper."
3. Stand of the State as reflected in the counter affidavit filed is that the petitioner, though separated from her father-in-law was residing with her husband in Mursundi-II AWC area at the time of submission of application. The Opposite Party No.4 had objected to the candidature of the petitioner but the then CDPO, violating the guidelines had appointed the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. The service area report clearly shows that she is residing in Mursundi-II anganwadi center area. Further, she had attended the inquiry and admitted that she has been residing in Mursundi-II center area and also of receiving all services relating to ICDS from the Mursundi-II anganwadi center.
Page 4 of 9
4. The stand of the private opposite party is more similar to the stand of the State. Additionally, it is contended that the petitioner has obtained false declaration from the Ward Member and Kishore Chandra Kheti just to show her residence within Mursundi-V angandwadi center area, which cannot be considered.
5. Heard Mr. M. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the private Opposite Party No.4 and Mr. S.S. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6.
6. Be it noted at the outset that both Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 filed affidavits, which are on record, relinquishing their claim to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Mursundi-V anganwadi Center area.
7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the guidelines any person belonging to the same village is eligible to be appointed as anganwadi worker. The petitioner being admittedly a resident of Mursundi village is therefore eligible. He further argues Page 5 of 9 that the petitioner has adduced ample proof of her residence in the house of Kishore Chandra Kheti on rent of Rs.500/- per month after being separated from her father- in-law, which has been admitted by the State in its counter. She has also received benefits from the Mursundi- V anganwadi center. The ADM committed error in not taking into consideration the documents and relied only upon the survey report, which was prepared before separation of the petitioner from her father-in-law.
8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would argue that the question of residence of the petitioner in the service area of the center in question being basically a matter of fact, the ADM, being the Appellate Authority has given his finding based on material placed before him. This Court may not interfere with such findings of fact. Mr. Patnaik further argues that even otherwise, it is evident from the survey report as well as the inquiry report of the Observer that the petitioner is a resident of Mursundi-II anganwadi center area and therefore the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Page 6 of 9
9. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.4 would argue that there is no reason to disbelieve the survey report or the inquiry of the Observer. The petitioner has produced fake documents to show her residence within Mursundi-V center area but the same being contrary to the survey report and the inquiry report cannot be taken into consideration.
10. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the facts of the case as well as the contention raised. This Court has also perused the impugned order. It is apposite to mention at the outset that this Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction would be slow to interfere with pure findings of fact unless the same are demonstrated to be perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of materials on record.
11. Viewed in light of the above principle, this Court finds that the ADM being the Appellate Authority has taken pain to verify all documents available on record such as, survey report of Mursundi-V anganwadi center, the inquiry report of Laxmipriya Mishra, Observer. The ADM has Page 7 of 9 recorded his observation basing on the survey report that neither the name of the petitioner nor her husband nor father-in-law find place in the survey list of center area of Mursundi-V anganwadi center. On the contrary, on verification of survey report of the Mursundi-II center, it was found that house No.25 belongs to Balakumar Bhoi, father-in-law of the petitioner. The names of the petitioner and her husband-Saroj Bhoi also find place in the survey report. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court to suggest as to how such finding of the ADM is wrong. Further, in view of the objections raised to the engagement of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by an Observer, name Laxmipriya Mishra. She submitted a report stating that the petitioner is not a resident of Anganwadi center area of Mursundi-V center, rather is a resident of Mursundi-II center area. The petitioner's name does not find place in the list of houses situate in Mursundi-V center area. The ADM has placed reliance on such report. Again, it has not been shown as to how the inquiry report is wrong.
Page 8 of 9
12. As regards the contention that the petitioner has been residing with her husband in the house of Kishore Chandra Kheti on rent, firstly, such plea does not appear to have been taken before the ADM and is being raised before this Court for the first time. Secondly, in view of the fact that contradictory documents being brought on record by the parties with each claiming the document filed by the other side to be fake, this Court would not enter into the arena of disputed questions of fact.
13. From what has been stated hereinbefore, this Court finds no reason to hold the findings of the ADM to be wrong in any manner whatsoever so as to be persuaded to interfere with the impugned order.
14. In the result, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Location:
TheOrissa 29th High July,Court, 2025/Cuttack B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno Date: 30-Jul-2025 10:36:06 Page 9 of 9