Anandini Hati vs State Of Odisha & Others

Sashikanta Mishra, J

An advertisement was published on 15.04.2023 by the Secretary of Swayangprabha Block Level Federation, Kantamal inviting applications for selection of Community Resource Person- Community Mobilizer (CRP-CM) for different Gram Panchayats under Kantamal Panchayat Samiti including Jalapali Gram Panchayt. The petitioner and opposite party No.6 applied for the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner claims to have submitted all required documents along with her application. A mark list was prepared by the selection committee on 22.05.2023, wherein the petitioner was treated to have secured 10 marks, whereas the opposite party No.6, 7 marks. The petitioner therefore, remained under the bonafide impression that she would be engaged in the post but when she did not receive any intimation to this end, she enquired and found that opposite party No.6 had been appointed. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector, Boudh and the BDO, Kantamal on 09.01.2024. Her representation was considered and disposed of vide letter dated 06.03.2024 by the BDO intimating that both she and the opposite party No.6 had secured the same marks but the latter being senior in age, was selected. According to the petitioner, the selection committee illegally selected opposite party No.6 by changing the mark sheet only to accommodate opposite party No.6 even though she is less meritorious than her. Basically, on such facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ application seeking the following relief:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the opp. Parties, call for the records relating to the appointment of Community Resources Person for Community Mobilisation(CRP- CM) of Jalapalı Grama Panchayat pursuant to advertisement dated15.04.2023 issued by the Secretary, Swayangprabha BLF and after hearing the parties be pleased to allow the writ petition by quashing the selection and appointment of Opp Party No.6 and by directing the authorities to appoint the petitioner Community Resources Person for Community Mobilisation(CRP-CM) in the Jalapali Grama Panchayat.

And by passing such other or further orders as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

And for such act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

The stand of the State (opposite party No.4) is that on preliminary scrutiny of the applications, opposite party No.6 not being treated as a beneficiary of Ration Card was not awarded weightage of 3 marks. Subsequently, on her objection, the matter was reconsidered, whereby her husband was recognised as the beneficiary of Ration Card and 3 more marks were added. The mark sheet prepared on 22.05.2023 was thus, rectified. Since the petitioner and opposite party No. 6 were found to have secured the same marks, the latter being senior in age was decided to be selected by the committee. Opposite party No.6 was awarded 3 marks as she is a Ration Card holder.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the opposite party No. 6 never submitted Ration Card with her application and therefore, award of 3 extra marks is entirely illegal. Even otherwise, she herself not being a Ration Card holder cannot be given weightage.

Heard Mr. D.K. Pani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State; Mr. S.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Mr. B.R. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.6.

Mr. Pani vehemently argues, referring to copy of the application form submitted by the opposite party No. 6 (enclosed Annexure-4 to the writ application) that she had not ticked at the relevant place to signify that she is a Ration Card holder. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured 10 marks and opposite party No.6, 7 marks. After publication of the merit list, selection committee could not have unilaterally changed the mark of opposite party No. 6 to make it equal with that of the petitioner. Mr. Pani further argues that though it is stated in the counter that the opposite party No.6 had raised objection, yet on information obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act, the office of the Panchayat Samiti has clearly informed that no written application of opposite party No. 6 is available in the office. Mr. Pani therefore, concludes his argument by submitting that the selection committee has committed gross illegality in acting beyond the guidelines.

Mr. S.N. Prattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit that though in the provisional mark sheet published on 22.05.2023, the petitioner was found to have secured 10 marks and opposite party No.6, 7 marks, yet the selection committee took note of objections raised and found that opposite party No. 6 was wrongly not recognised as a Ration Card holder. As such, weightage of 3 marks was given to her. The marks being equal, she was preferred being senior in age. Mr. Pattnaik also submits that though no written objection was received from opposite party No.6, yet she had physically appeared before the selection board at the time of document verification and had raised objection, which was taken into consideration.

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 submits that the Odisha Livelihood Mission has no direct role to play in the process of selection but has issued the guidelines which are required to be strictly followed.

Mr. B.R. Tripathy argues that the opposite party No. 6 is a beneficiary of the Ration Card issued in the name of her father-in-law, in which her husband is also a beneficiary. She therefore, fulfils the required criteria for being given weightage of 3 marks. Since, initially the weightage was not given, she approached the selection committee and raised objection, which being considered, weightage of 3 marks was given.

From the facts narrated above and the rival contentions advanced, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the selection of opposite party No. 6 is in conformity with the relevant guidelines. Reference to the revised guidelines for selection of Community Support Staff published by Odisha Livelihood Mission lays down the eligibility criteria for CRP-CM as follows.

“Community Resource Person for Community Mobilization (CRP-CM)

a. Shall be a woman and an SIIG member b. Shall be able to read and write Odia

C Shall be well conversed with local language/dialect

d. Age minimum 18 years

e Educational Qualification: minimum 10th pass

f Domicile Shall be resident of the same village/cluster”

There is no dispute that both the petitioner and opposite party No.6 meet the eligibility criteria as above. As regards weightage of marks, the following is laid down.

“Community Resource Persons for Community Mobilization (CRP-CM)

Weightage of mark

Total Weightage marks

Educational Qualification

Socio Economic cum Special Category

Experience

a. In Non-Tribal sub plan blocks

10th pass: 33% to less than 60% marks – 5 marks,

60% and above marks – 10 marks

b. In Tribal sub plan blocks & GPs with PVTG population in other blocks

10th pass: 33% to less than 50% marks – 5 marks

50% and above marks – 10 marks

c. Additional Qualification and marks

i. +2 / 12th / Intermediate qualification – Additional 2 marks,

ii. +3 / Graduation qualification

– Additional 2 marks,

iii. Post-Graduation qualification– Additional 2 marks.

03 marks – applicant belonging to any one or more or all of the following categories.

Poor / EPVG (SECC 2011

Census data) / Ration card holder /

BPL / Annual Income < Rs. 60,000/- /

SC / ST / Minority / Orphan / PWD / PVTG

For CRP-CM

Position. experience as Internal CRP / Senior CRPs- (minimum 2 and above rounds) / CRP-CM / MBK

(for continuous 6 months & above) – 4 marks

23

The details of weightage of marks lays down that 3 marks shall be awarded as weightage to the applicants belonging to any one or more or all of the following categories- Poor/EPVG (SECC 2011 Census data)/Ration card holder/BPL/Annual Income less than Rs.60.000/-)/ SC/ST/Minority/Orphan/PWD/PVTG. The dispute in the present case, revolves around the question whether opposite party No. 6 is a Ration Card holder. Being directed by this Court, the State Counsel has produced the original selection file including the applications submitted by the petitioner and opposite party No.6 along with the required documents. In the application form submitted by the petitioner, it is seen that under the heading ‘Economic Category’, she has ticked the option ‘Ration Card holder’ and ‘BPL’. In the list of documents attached, she has mentioned Ration Card among other documents, which is also reflected in the checklist of documents. Perusal of copy of the Ration Card shows that the same has been issued in her post-marital name, i.e., Anandini Majhi, her father’s name is mentioned as Rishab Hati. Perusal of the application form of opposite party No.6 reveals that she has not mentioned anything under the heading ‘Economic Category’. In the list of documents attached, she has mentioned ‘Ration Card’. But surprisingly, in the checklist of documents, she has not ticked the column stating ration card holder. Copy of Ration Card is enclosed but the same stands in the name of Yashoda Sandha. The family details have been mentioned including the name of one Tripurai Sandha. There is simply no mention of the name of opposite party No.6 or that of the name of her father-Madhu Bishi anywhere in the Ration Card. Even otherwise, the guidelines, particularly relating to the weightage of marks on the socio-economic -cum- special category mention ‘Ration Card Holder’. It is stated in the counter affidavit that her husband was recognised as beneficiary of Ration Card. However, the name of her husband has not been stated anywhere in the counter affidavit. In any case, there being no provision to treat the wife of a beneficiary of Ration Card as a Ration Card Holder, it is not understood as to how the opposite Party No.6 could be treated as such.

Another aspect that is worth mentioning is the stand taken by the State that the change of mark sheet was done on the basis of objection submitted by the opposite party No.6. However, as per information obtained by the petitioner from the office of the Panchayat Samiti, no written application of opposite party No.6 was ever received in the said office. In the written note of submission filed by the State, it is admitted that no written complaint was received from opposite party No.6 but she physically appeared before the selection board at the time of document verification and had raised her objection along with the original Ration Card in the name of her husband. However, counter affidavit filed by the State is entirely silent in this regard. Even otherwise, the Ration Card submitted by opposite party No.6 along with her application stands in the name of one Yashoda Sandha and not in the name of her husband.

Thus, taking into consideration all the facts, this Court finds that the Selection Board committed gross illegality in going beyond the guidelines to award 3 extra marks to opposite party No.6, which she did not deserve. Since admittedly, the petitioner secured highest marks, the selection board must also be held to have committed illegality in ignoring her candidature.

For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of opposite party No.6 as CRP-CM of Jalapali Gram Panchayat is hereby set aside. The Collector, Boudh is directed to issue necessary orders for engagement of the petitioner as CRP-CM of the above mentioned Gram Panchayat without any further delay and in any case, not less than four weeks from today. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to notional service benefits from the date on which opposite party No.6 was appointed however, she shall not be entitled to any financial benefit for the said period.