CHARULATA BEHERA Vs PRAVATI PARIDA .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Case number: C.A. No.-001322-001322 / 2015
Diary number: 4639 / 2012
Advocates: V. K. MONGA Vs
AMARJIT SINGH BEDI
Page 1
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.10183/12
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1322 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10183 of 2012]
Charulata Behera …..Appellant
Versus
Pravati Parida & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. Heard the parties. Leave granted.
2. The appellant as well as respondent no.1 applied in
response to an advertisement dated 02.02.2009 for engagement
as Anganwadi Worker for Urumukhi-3 Anganwadi Center,
Bhushandpur, Tangi, Odisha. She is aggrieved by the judgment
under appeal dated 18.07.2011 whereby the Division Bench of
Orissa High Court set aside the order of a learned Single Judge of
the High Court dated 09.08.2010. The effect of the impugned
order/judgment is to allow the writ petition preferred by
respondent no.1 and as a result selection and appointment of the
1
Page 2
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.10183/12
appellant stands set aside and instead respondent no.1 has been
appointed as Anganwadi Worker for the concerned centre.
3. The moot question to be answered in this appeal is whether
the Division Bench should have allowed the writ appeal only on
technicalities and on the basis of certain orders passed earlier
when on facts there was no ambiguity that respondent no.1 was
not a resident of the concerned centre and hence lacked the
basic eligibility for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for the
centre.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the
relevant orders and enquiry reports which show that even before
the appellant was engaged, as soon as respondent no.1 came to
know that in the selection process appellant had secured highest
marks and was likely to be engaged, she approached
appellate/higher authority – respondent no.3, the Sub-Collector,
Khurda. By order dated 26.12.2009, respondent no.3 noticed
that appellant’s sister was engaged as Anganwadi Worker in
another centre and, therefore, without waiting for the order of
engagement, as appellate authority – respondent no.3 set aside
the orders selecting the appellant and the matter was remanded
back to the Child Development Project Officer – respondent no.4
2
Page 3
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.10183/12
to reconsider the case of the respondent no.1 as per the
Government guidelines. The Selection Committee reconsidered
the relevant facts in a meeting held on 04.06.2010 attended by
five members of the Selection Committee including the Sub-
Collector, Khurda who had remanded the matter for
reconsideration. The minutes of the proceedings of Selection
Committee dated 04.06.2010 have also been signed by Sub-
Collector, Khurda and they disclose that appellant was found to
be the most eligible candidate for appointment. In the
meantime, respondent no.1 had preferred a writ petition bearing
W.P.(C)No.9300 of 2010 in which her simple grievance was that
order of Sub-Collector, Khurda dated 26.12.2009 was not being
implemented. That writ petition was disposed of on 20.05.2010
with a direction to implement the order of Sub-Collector within
four weeks.
5. Respondent no.1 challenged the decision of the Selection
Committee dated 04.06.2010 directly through a writ petition
bearing W.P.(C)No.11960 of 2010. The writ petition was
dismissed on 09.08.2010 on the ground that appellant had
secured more marks in the selection and there was no illegality in
the selection process. A liberty, however, was granted to the
3
Page 4
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.10183/12
respondent no.1 that as per Government guidelines, she may
prefer an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate against
the selection of the appellant. The respondent no.1 did not
prefer any appeal before the Additional District Magistrate or any
other authority and instead preferred Writ Appeal No.430 of 2010
which was allowed on 18.07.2011 by the order under appeal.
6. The Division Bench has interfered with the appointment of
the appellant only on the basis of appellate authority’s order
dated 26.12.2009 and the order dated 20.05.2010 passed in W.P.
(C)No.9300 of 2010 in which the simple direction was to
implement the remand order passed by Sub-Collector, Khurda on
26.12.2009. According to the Division Bench, the aforesaid two
orders had not been, and therefore ought to be complied,
particularly when nobody had objected to those orders by
preferring any review or appeal.
7. In our considered view, the Division Bench erred in ignoring
the fact that order dated 26.12.2009 was an order whereby the
Selection Committee was required only to reconsider the relevant
matters and hence by completion of necessary exercise on
04.06.2010, the order of remand dated 26.12.2009 stood
complied even in terms of directions of the learned Single Judge
4
Page 5
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.10183/12
made on 20.05.2010 in W.P.(C)No.9300 of 2010. The Division
Bench erred in presuming that the remand order required
rejection of appellant’s case and appointment of respondent no.1.
The Division Bench also failed to notice that the Sub-Collector,
Khurda who passed the order dated 26.12.2009 was a member of
the Selection Committee and party to the decision taken in favour
of appellant on 04.06.2010. The Division Bench further erred in
ignoring the case of the official respondents that respondent no.1
lacked the eligibility qualification for selection and engagement
because she was not a resident of the centre in question.
8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no option
but to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant
that the order under appeal has been passed without looking into
the relevant facts and ignoring the well settled principle in
respect of exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India that such jurisdiction should not be
exercised on mere technicalities especially if the result of such
exercise will amount to perpetuation of illegality. In the present
case the appointment of respondent no.1 made pursuant to order
under appeal is clearly illegal as she did not have the eligibility
5
Page 6
C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.10183/12
qualification. This is also the stand of official respondents even in
the counter affidavit filed before this Court.
9. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order of the Division Bench dated 18.07.2011 is set aside
and as ordered by learned Single Judge, the writ petition
preferred by the respondent no.1 shall stand dismissed.
Consequently, the appellant’s engagement would revive. The
appellant shall be permitted to resume her work on the post of
Anganwadi Worker at the concerned centre forthwith so that she
may not suffer further loss of remuneration etc. unnecessarily. In
the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………………….J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
……………………………………..J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi. January 30, 2015.
6