AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sashikanta Mishra, J
An advertisement was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Khandapara Block in the district of Nayagarh on 25.11.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Kumbharapada-3 Anganwadi Centre. Said advertisement inter alia mentioned a condition that the resident certificate of the candidates should have been obtained six months prior to the date of advertisement. The petitioner and the opposite party No.4 along with others applied. Opposite party No.4 applied for resident certificate on 06.12.2016, which was issued to her on 09.12.2016, on which date she submitted the same. Be it noted that 09.12.2016 was the last date for submission of application. The applications along with the documents of the candidates were scrutinized on 12.12.2016 and the selection committee conducted the selection process on 24.04.2018, wherein the petitioner was awarded 55.80 marks while opposite party No.4 was awarded 56 marks. Thus, opposite party No.4 was selected. The petitioner challenged the selection of opposite party No.4 before the appellate authority, i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Nayagarh in A.W. Appeal No. 1 of 2018 inter alia on the ground that the resident certificate obtained by opposite party no.4 was after the date fixed in the advertisement and hence, could not have been accepted by the selection committee. In the meantime, on 27.04.2019 engagement order was issued in favour of opposite party No.4. On 18.12.2019, the appellate authority found no merit in the appeal and therefore, dismissed it. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
“The petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the order dt. 27.04.2019 (Annexure-12) and order dt.18.12.2019 (Annexure-13) shall not be quashed;
AND
As to why the petitioner shall not be engaged as anganwadi worker in the post of Anganwadi in Kumbharapada -3 Anganwadi centre under Khandapara Block in the district of Nayagarh.
AND
For this act of your kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
The case of opposite party No.4 is that she having secured the highest marks was eligible for being engaged as Anganwadi Worker. As regards the specific ground urged by the opposite party No.4 regarding validity of the resident certificate, it is her stand that as per settled law, eligibility criteria is to be applied with reference to the last date for receipt of application. Since she had submitted the resident certificate on the last date of submission of application form, acceptance of the same was in order. It is her further case that the petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the selection process. Further, the appellate authority having considered the facts in the proper perspective, the impugned order does not warrant any interference more so as she (opposite party No.4) has been rendering satisfactory service as Anganwadi Worker for the past four years.
Heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel for private opposite party No.4 and Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
Mr. Nayak would contend that once a cutoff date has been fixed and notified in the advertisement, it is not permissible to extend the same under any circumstances. In the instant case, the advertisement clearly mentioned that the resident certificate must have been issued within six months prior to the date of advertisement, i.e. 25.11.2016. The advertisement does not contain any relaxation clause. Therefore, unilateral extension of the cutoff date as regards resident certificate is bad in law.
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.4 would argue that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection process after participating therein and becoming unsuccessful. He further argues that even otherwise the cutoff date for considering the eligibility has to be reckoned with reference to the last date of submission of application, which in the instant case was 09.12.2016. Mr. Rayaguru has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262; Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58; Himachal Pradesh State Electicity Board Ltd. & Another v. Dharminder Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1855. Mr. Rayaguru has also relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Durjo Nayak vs. State of Odisha & Others [W.P.(C) No. 16015 of 2022 decided on 12.12.2022].
Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate argues that resident certificate is valid for six months. The opposite party No.4 submitted the same on the last date of receipt of application. Therefore, she cannot be treated as ineligible for being selected as Anganwadi Worker. Mr. Pattanaik, therefore, argues that the impugned order warrants no interference.
As is evident, the moot point to be decided in the present writ application is, whether the cutoff date fixed in the advertisement in respect of resident certificate can be extended till the last date of receipt of applications.
The advertisement (copy enclosed as Annexure-1) mentions under Clause-2 that the applicant should be a permanent resident of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre, having a current permanent resident certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar and that such certificate should have been issued six months prior to the date of advertisement. Undisputedly, the advertisement was published on 25.11.2016. The last date of submission of application was mentioned as 09.12.2016. Thus, there are two dates for consideration i.e., 25.11.2016, the date of the advertisement and 09.12.2016, the last date for receipt of applications. Had there been no cutoff date mentioned as regards resident certificate, obviously the last date for receipt of applications would have been relevant, but when a cutoff date is specifically provided in the advertisement itself by the authorities, can it be altered? Before proceeding to answer this, it first needs to be understood as to why such a cutoff date was fixed in the first place. As per the revised guidelines issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 for selection of Anganwadi Workers, applications are to be invited from women residing in the same village/Anganwadi Centre area. In the circular dated 01.03.2008, the Government clarified that residential certificate issued by the Tahasildar has to be entertained. Significantly, in the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 1984, the validity of resident certificate issued by the authority is six months from the date of issue, which under the new Rules, i.e. Odisha Miscellaneous Certificates Rules, 2017 is one year. Thus, the advertisement having been published in November, 2016, the unamended Rules (1984 Rules) would be applicable, as per which the validity of the resident certificate was six months. The intention of the authorities in issuing the advertisement stipulating that the resident certificate should have been issued six months prior to the date of advertisement was obviously to ensure that a permanent resident of the service area/village in question could only apply, which is consistent with the guidelines dated 02.05.2007. Further, fixing the cutoff date as the date of advertisement itself would imply that the authorities intended to foreclose any attempt by a candidate to obtain resident certificate only for the purpose of applying for engagement as Anganwadi Worker after issuance of the advertisement.
In the case of Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) relied upon by the private opposite party No.4, the Apex Court affirmed the view taken by the High Court and observed as follows:
“13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [(1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913 : JT (1997) 4 SC 99] , A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. SaratChandra [(1990) 2 SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 13 ATC 708 : (1990) 4 SLR 235] , District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766 : (1990) 4 SLR 237] , Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234 : JT (1993) 1 SC 220] , M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India [(1993) 2 SCC 429 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 512 : (1993) 24 ATC 236] and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad v. Alpana [(1994) 2 SCC 723 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 742 : (1994) 27 ATC 101 : JT (1994) 1 SC 94] the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.” [ Emphasis added]
Thus, the arguments advanced by Mr. Rayaguru have no merit since the advertisement in question does provides a cutoff date.
The case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) can be distinguished on the facts of the case as the appellant in that case did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of application though he had applied representing that he possessed the same.
The case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra) can also be distinguished on facts since the same relates to possession of qualification as on the last date of receipt of application.
In the case of Ranjita Naik vs. Additional District Magistrate, Subarnapur and Ors., reported in 2017 (II) OLR 1127, a learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with a similar matter relating to submission of residential certificate held that the selection committee by accepting the application with residential certificate issued beyond six months was not proper. The present case stands more or less on similar lines inasmuch as the advertisement stipulated that the residential certificate ought to have been issued six months prior to the date of advertisement i.e. 25.11.2016. Therefore, by accepting a certificate on 09.12.2016, the said stipulation in the advertisement is seriously violated.
As it appears, the selection committee committed manifest error in accepting the resident certificate of opposite party No.4 by unilaterally extending the cutoff date from 25.11.2016 to 09.12.2016. The Appellate Authority also committed the same error.
In view of the settled position of law as discussed earlier no condition stipulated in the advertisement can be altered unilaterally by the authorities. It is to be noted that if it was the intention to extend the cutoff date till 09.12.2016, the authorities should have issued a corrigendum to such effect. In the absence of such corrigendum other eligible candidates who could have applied were automatically debarred. This violates the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of engagement of opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-12 and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide Annexure-13 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders under Annexure-12 and 13 are hereby set aside. The Sub-Collector -cum-Chairman, Selection Committee, Nayagarh (opposite party No.5) is directed to take necessary steps for engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Kumbharapada-3 Anganwadi Centre within four weeks.
……………………………….