Rasmita Sahani vs A.D.M., Cuttack & Others

Sashikanta Mishra, J

The petitioner questions the correctness of order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008.

The short facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted her candidature for engagement as Anganwadi Worker pursuant to advertisement dated 17.04.2008 issued by the CDPO, Mahanga. In the selection process that followed, the petitioner was found to have secured the highest marks among all candidates and was therefore, recommended for selection. One of the candidates, namely, Jayanti Maharana questioned the selection of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Sadar being AWC Misc. Appeal Case No. 5 of 2008. Said appeal was disposed of by order dated 06.06.2009 by holding that the petitioner, Rashmita Sahani is not an inhabitant of Gopalpur but is a resident of revenue village Dobandhia. As such, her selection for engagement as Anganwadi Worker was held to be illegal. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ application being W.P.(C). No. 8745 of 2009. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 02.07.2010 remitting the matter to the appellate authority with a direction to consider all materials available on record afresh and to give a finding. Pursuant to such order, the appeal was heard afresh and by order dated 09.09.2010, the previous decision was reiterated.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs;

i)To quash the order dated 09.09.10 under Annexure-12.

ii) To quash the order dated 06.06.09 passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-7.

iii) To pass such other orders/orders as would deem fit and proper;

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

The State has not filed any counter, though the State counsel preferred to make oral submissions.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the private Opposite Party No.4 reiterating her contentions raised in the appeal to the effect that the petitioner is not a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. As such, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

Heard Ms. B.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Routray, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. None appears for the Opposite Party No.4.

Ms. Pattnaik would submit that the Sub-Collector has no authority to hold the resident certificate issued by the Tahasildar as erroneous, as the same was issued under the provisions of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. Though two certificates were issued in favour of the petitioner, the first one being erroneous was cancelled. As regards the second certificate, the same has not yet been cancelled and therefore, cannot be ignored.

Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner not having proved to be a resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre in question, which is a mandatory requirement, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no reason to interfere for the reason that this being a certiorari proceeding, nothing has been demonstrated as to how the order is ex facie erroneous or passed without jurisdiction or that the findings are perverse so as to justify interference by this Court. On facts, it is noticed that the appellate authority having observed that there were two certificates, directed the Tahasildar, Mahanga to conduct an inquiry as regards the residential status of the petitioner. In the inquiry, it was found that the certificate showing the petitioner as a resident of village Gopalpur was issued on the basis of her relationship as granddaughter-in-law of the recorded tenant, Karunakar Sahani but during local inquiry, it was found that her husband is not the real grandson of the recorded tenant rather his father is his adopted son. The Tahasildar further found that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Dobandhia and not Gopalpur. It goes without saying that a resident certificate shows the permanent residence in relation to a revenue village and not the service area of a particular Anganwadi Centre. So, notwithstanding the resident certificate, since it has been found on inquiry that the petitioner does not belong to the service area of the Anganwadi Centre, the Sub-Collector rejected her claim. From what has been narrated before, this Court fully concurs with such finding.

In the result, the writ application being devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed.