Sumitra Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others

The present appeal is directed against an order dated 9th February, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 13250 of 2014 filed by the present Appellant thereby rejecting her challenge to an order dated 15th July, 2014 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kendrapada (ADM) dismissing her Anganwadi Appeal No. 8 of 2012 whereby she had questioned the selection of Respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Worker (AWW) of Talipatna (Thakurpatna), Anganwadi Center (AWC) in Kendrapada district.

There are two major grounds of challenge raised by the present Appellant to the appointment of Respondent No.5 as AWW. The first was that she did not belong to the AWC area of Talipatna. On this, neither the ADM nor the learned Single Judge agreed with the Appellant. It is found that the Appellant herself was a resident of Thakurpatna and not Talipatna which was the area of the AWC.

The second ground on which the challenge was raised was that Respondent No.5 had manipulated the matriculation mark sheet and her selection was initially made on the basis of her certificate that showed her as having secured 528 marks whereas, the final selection record revealed that the marks shown for her was 446. It is claimed by the Appellant that pursuant to an application made by her under the Right to Information Act, the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa informed the Appellant by a letter dated 12th March, 2013 that Respondent No.5 had scored 446 marks.

The ADM dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant four years after the selection, on the ground of delay. On the issue of the mark sheet, the ADM held that “this Court is not competent to examine the genuineness of the certificates as submitted by both the parties i.e. by the Appellant as well as Respondent No.4 at a belated stage.” As far as learned Single Judge is concerned, noting that Respondent No.5 scored 446 marks, which was higher than the 377 marks scored by the present Appellant, the writ petition was dismissed.

By an order dated 17th April, 2019 this Court called for the records of the case.

Today Mr.Khuntia, learned Counsel appearing for the State, has produced the records which include the Register maintained for the selection process. It reveals that as far as Respondent No.5 is concerned, the certificate dated 18th October, 2006 issued by the Headmaster of the Damodar High School showed that the marks secured by her in the Matriculation exam was 446. Later, on 25th January, 2010 the Board of Secondary Education Orissa, Cuttack appears to have issued a certificate showing the matriculation marks of Respondent No.5 to be 446.

The case of the Appellant is that Respondent No.5 had at the time of submitting her application form, submitted a forged matriculation marksheet showing her marks to be 528 whereas, she had in fact secured only 446 marks. The original records produced before this Court reveal that the marks filled up in hand in Column 8 of the application form submitted by Respondent No.5 is 446, which appears to have been written after scoring out the marks indicated initially. Respondent No.5 enclosed a certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education showing that she secured the second division, i.e. below 450 marks. It is evident that she had submitted the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school showing her marks to be 446. In other words, the original records reveal Respondent No.5 produced a mark sheet which showed the marks secured by her in the matriculation exam to be 446.

As far as the Appellant is concerned, there is no dispute that she scored 377 marks i.e. less than the 446 marks scored by Respondent No.5. Therefore, there was no question of the Appellant replacing Respondent No. 5 even assuming she succeeded in this appeal.

Admittedly, Respondent No. 5, has scored 446 marks, and is higher in the order of merit than the Appellant. Since the selection was made on the basis of Respondent No.5 scoring 446 marks and not 528 marks, it cannot be said that she secured her selection through ‘manipulation’ or ‘fraud’.

Consequently, the Court finds no merit in the present appeal and is dismissed as such.

The original files have been returned to learned counsel for the State.

………………………………..