Tapaswini Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others Vs

Sashikanta Mishra, J

Notice in this case was issued on 28.05.2012. While the State counsel accepted notice on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5, notice on Opposite Party No.6 was directed to be issued by registered post with AD. The office note indicates that notice on Opposite Party No.6 was validly served as evident from the AD received by the office. Despite lapse of such a long time, the State has not filed any counter. This being a case of the year 2012, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time. The writ application is therefore, taken up for hearing.

Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

The facts of the case are that pursuant to notification dated 15.09.2010 by the CDPO, Dampada for engagement of Anganwadi Helper of different Anganwadi Centers, the petitioner applied for Kalaranta Anganwadi Center. In the meeting of the Mahila Sabha held for selection on 31.12.2010 no selection could be made because of disturbance created by several persons. One of the applicants, namely, Padmabati Dei, who is presently impleaded as Opposite Party no.6, filed a writ application before this Court being W.P.(C) No.2547 of 2011. By order dated 15.02.2011, this Court disposed of the writ application directing the Sub-Collector to consider the representation of the said petitioner. Pursuant to such order, the Sub-Collector, Banki directed the CDPO to hold meeting for selection of Anganwadi Helper, if necessary, taking assistance of the police. Accordingly, the selection was held on 26.08.2011, in which, the petitioner being the only candidate present, was selected as per the guidelines. The Opposite Party No.6 again preferred another writ application being W.P.(C) No.20035 of 2011, which was disposed of directing the Collector to dispose of her representation within four weeks. Pursuant to such order, the Collector, by order dated 16.03.2012, in disposing of the representation of the Opposite Party No.6, set aside the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the Opposite Party No.6, being a poor widow was a deserving candidate for the post.

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Mahila Sabha held on 26.08.2011, the petitioner was the only candidate. She was also selected strictly as per the guidelines issued by the Government. No other candidate including Opposite Party No.6 had appeared. As such, consideration of their candidatures was not justified.

Mr. Routray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel would submit that as per the guidelines a widow is to be preferred over other candidates and therefore, the Collector rightly set aside the engagement of the petitioner.

Reference to the guidelines issued by the Government in W & CD Department on 24.11.1997 reveals that preference is to be given to an orphan, widow, separated, divorced, or deserted women. The procedure for selection provides that the committee headed by the CDPO with Supervisor and ANM as members, should select the Anganwadi Helper in consultation with the women groups of the village. As has been stated herein before, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Sub-Collector directed the CDPO vide letter dated 29.06.2011 to hold meeting for selection of Anganwadi Helper. Accordingly, the meeting is said to have been held on 26.08.2011, when the petitioner was only present and the other three candidates namely, Sarojini Pradhan, Padmabati Dei (Opposite Party No.6) and Mamata Pradhan were absent. The members present voted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, she was selected. Under such circumstances, the selection of the petitioner cannot be faulted with in any manner whatsoever. Though the guidelines lay down that preference is to be given to some categories of candidates, the same obviously does not mean that all other candidates are to be ignored. Moreover, when a candidate entitled to preference is absent during the meeting, it can be presumed that she is not interested for such engagement.

Even assuming that she had some personal difficulty for which she could not appear, she could have brought such fact to the notice of the authorities. Nothing has been demonstrated before this Court that the Opposite Party No.6 had approached the authority to explain as to why she was not present or to seek postponement of the proceedings because of her difficulty. Under the circumstances, her absence can only be treated as fatal to her candidature as otherwise it would result in gross injustice to the candidate, who was physically present, participated in the proceeding and was voted by the majority of the persons present. The Collector appears to have ignored the above aspect while apparently placing undue sympathy on the Opposite Party No.6.

For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In the result the writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-4 is hereby quashed.

.......………………………….