Shantilata Pradhan vs State of Orissa and Others

S.N. Prasad, J.

Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 24.6.2010 as contained in letter No. 265 by which petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground that the advertisement has been issued for engagement of Anganwadi Worker for MADA area wherein only candidates of ST/ST category is to be considered but the petitioner being not a member of ST/ST category appointed for MADA area, her engagement has been cancelled, has approached this Court.

Grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in pursuance to the advertisement has applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker without suppressing any material facts and after giving full disclosure of particulars of the petitioner, has been selected and engaged and performed duty for a period of one year, but thereafter vide order dated 24.6.2010 her engagement has been cancelled which is impugned in this writ petition on the ground that the Director, Social Welfare and Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary to Government addressed to the Collector, Khurda dated 15.2.2010 regarding filling up of the post of ICDS Supervisors on contractual basis from among the Anganwadi Workers having Graduate qualification wherein benefit of reservation to be given to ST and SC candidates in lieu of Class-III and Class-IV posts has been revoked by ST and SC Development Department vide resolution No. 5890 dated 8.2.2010.

Referring to the communication dated 8.2.2010 it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that ban of outsiders in consideration for engagement as Anganwadi Workers even in MADA area has been lifted, ground of termination is absolutely non-est.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has contested the case by filing counter affidavit and has stated that Anganwadi Worker is to be engaged in view of the Government guideline dated 2.5.2007 wherein provision has been made for consideration of candidates belonging to ST/ST category in the MADA area which has been clarified by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department addressed to all Collectors by clarifying the position vide communication dated 18.8.2008 stating therein that Anganwadi Worker will be SC/ST in the ''Scheduled Area'' is also applicable for MADA area. The guideline issued earlier already mentions relaxation of minimum qualification in case Matriculate SC/ST candidates not available in the MADA area for selection of Anganwadi Worker.

Further submission has been by the opposite parties that even though petitioner has been engaged which is contrary to the provisions of the guideline, hence the authorities after coming to know about illegality having been committed in the engagement of the petitioner being contrary to the guideline, has taken a right decision by cancelling engagement of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

The matter pertains to engagement of Anganwadi Worker in the Scheduled Area. From perusal of the guideline dated 2.5.2007 there is a provision that in the Scheduled Area candidates belonging to SC/ST will be considered only, this has been clarified by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department in his letter dated 18.8.2008 clarifying the position that Scheduled Area also includes MADA area.

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that SC/ST Development Department has already lifted embargo for consideration of engagement of candidates belonging to other category, disengagement of the petitioner is absolutely illegal, from perusal of the communication dated 15.2.2010 which has been issued by the, Director, Social Welfare and Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary to Government regarding upliftment of embargo for ensuring reservation to ST/SC in contractual engagement in lieu of Class-III and Class-IV posts has been revoked by ST and SC Department. The said communication suggests that clarification has been issued regarding consideration of ICDS Supervisors on contractual basis from amongst the Anganwadi Workers having Graduate qualification and this does not concerned with the engagement of Anganwadi Workers because in the said clarification there is no reference of the Guideline by which Anganwadi Workers are to be engaged. Petitioner''s case is for consideration for engagement as Anganwadi Worker as to whether a candidate not belonging to SC/ST category can be considerate in the MADA area. Guideline dated 2.5.2007 and the clarification letter dated 18.8.2008 suggest that MADA area ST/SC candidate is to be given engagement with relaxation clause, thus for Anganwadi Worker there is no specific clarification in the letter dated 18.8.2008.

So far as contention of the petitioner that he has already been engaged without any suppression of facts and as such disengagement order is absolutely illegal that too after lapse of period of one year. With respect to this submission, it is settled proposition of law that if any appointment/engagement has been made which dehors the Rule and if the authority came to the know that illegality has been committed, same cannot be permitted to be perpetuated and it is the duty of the authority to rectify the same.

The authority came to conclusion that engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has been made being not a candidate belong to ST/SC category in the MADA area, they have issued termination of the petitioner dated 24.6.2010.

In view of the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of termination.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.