Puspanjali Das @ Dey vs State Of Orissa And Others

The present writ appeal is directed against an order dated 6th September, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.26519 of 2017 filed by Respondent No.4 thereby setting aside an order dated 21st November, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Balasore in allowing Anganwadi Appeal No.5 of 2017 filed by the present Appellant, who had questioned the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Anganwadi Worker (AWW) at the Golabagada Mini Anganwadi Centre (AWC) under the ICDS Project, Bhograi.

The challenge to the appointment of Respondent No.4 was on the ground that she was not a resident of the service area as advertised by the CDPO, Bhograi for the concerned AWC. In the order dated 21st November, 2017 while allowing the appeal of the present Appellant, the ADM noted that the dwelling house of Respondent No.4 was not situated within the service area of the concerned AWC and that the area survey list submitted by the AWW of Udayaganj Patna had not been authenticated by the Sector Lady Supervisor and the CDPO, Bhograi. According to the ADM, it had been prepared on ‘pick and choose’ basis.

The learned Single Judge has in the impugned order referred to the fact that in the survey report, the house of Respondent No.4 was at Serial No.110 which was the house of her father-in-law, in which she resided along with her husband. The survey report prepared by the AWW, Udayaganj Patna also substantiated this plea. The CDPO also accepted that report. Only because it did not bear the signature of the Lady Supervisor, the ADM held the said document not to be authentic.

The learned Single Judge further noted that apart from the survey report, a residence certificate was also issued by the Tahasildar which stated that Respondent No.4 was ordinarily residing at Udayaganj Patna.

The learned Single Judge was, therefore, prepared to accept the above plea of Respondent No.4 about her fulfilling the residence requirement. It was observed that if the ADM had any doubt in regard to the authenticity of the survey report, he could have relied on the report of the Tahasildar or asked the authorities to conduct an enquiry.

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant urged that since the learned Single Judge observed that the ADM ought to have directed the authorities to conduct an enquiry, that direction ought to have been issued by the learned Single Judge instead of setting aside the decision of the ADM allowing the appeal filed by the present Appellant.

The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. There was enough material on record before the learned Single Judge to substantiate the plea of Respondent No.4 that she fulfilled the residence requirement. That being the only ground on which the ADM sought to cancel her appointment, the inevitable result was the reversal of the ADM’s order.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not satisfied that any ground has been made out for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..