IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15693 of 2011 CNR No. ODHC010053792011 Mamata Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. B.N. Swarnakar, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC Mr. M Pati, Advocate for O.P. No.4 COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 01.09.2026 26. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to order dated 04.08.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the Resident Certificate of both the Petitioner as well as private Opposite Party No.4, in Court along with a memo, with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. The same be kept on record. 4. Petitioners files the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following Prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ Petition, issue notice on the Opp. parties to show cause as to:- A. Why the impugned orders dated 23.11.2009 and 6.5.2011 passed by the Sub Collector, Titilagarh, under Anenxures-4 & 6 shall not be quashed being illegal and arbitrary; B. Why the Petitioner shall not be permitted to continue as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Bhandarbanji AWC Centre having secured more marks; C. Why such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice and equity; If the Opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to made the rule absolute and issue order/orders by quashing the impugned orders dated 23.11.2009 and 6.5.2011 under Annexures-4 and 6 and direct the Opp. party No.3 to engage the Petitioner as AWW in respect of Bhandarbanji AWC as she has secured more marks than other candidates and confirms to the terms and conditions laid down in the government guidelines in the facts and circumstances of the case. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice and equity; And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 5. It is contended that pursuant to the selection process initiated by Opp. party No.3 for engagement of Anganwadi Worker in respect of ICDS Projects, Petitioner along with others made the application in respect of Bhandrganji Anganwadi Centre under Saintala block in the district of Bolangir. 5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the said selection process, Petitioner when was found eligible to get the benefit of engagement as an Anganwadi Worker of the Centre in question with issuance of the order of engagement vide order dtd.11.08.2009 under Annexure-8. Opp. party No.4 challenging the same, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.12875 of 2009. This Court vide its order dtd.08.09.2009, while disposing the matter permitted Opp. party No.4 to prefer an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Titlagarh. 5.2. It is contended that in terms of such order passed by this Court, Opp. party No.4 filed Appeal Case No. 65 of 2009 before the learned Sub- Collector, Titlagarh. In the said appeal, Opp. party No.2 vide order dtd.20.09.2009, when directed to cancel the residential certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner and also directed to give engagement to the next candidate in the merit list as per rules and Regulation, Petitioner challenged the same by approaching the Collector and District Magistrate, Bolangir in Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2009 and Misc. Appeal No.9 of 2009. Learned Collector vide order dtd.21.10.2010 under Annexure-5, remitted the matter to Sub-Collector, Titlagarh for fresh disposal of both the appeals so filed by Opp. party No.4 in accordance with law. 5.3. It is contended that on such remand of the matter, Opp. party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.06.05.2011 under Annexure-6, when held that Opp. party No.4 is the only candidate who resides within the Centre Area of the Centre and held that there is no difficulty on the part of Opp. party No.3 to issue engagement order in favour of Opp. party No.4 by observing all the formalities, Petitioner challenging the earlier order passed by Opp. party No.2 on 20.09.2009 under Annexure-4 and the order passed on remand vide order dtd.06.05.2011 under Annexure-6, is before this Court in the present Writ Petition. It is contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court, Petitioner is continuing as an Anganwadi Worker of the Centre in question. 5.4. While assailing the impugned order passed under Annexures-4 & 6, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since in the Resident Certificate so produced by the Petitioner, her residence was indicated having belong to the Centre area, she was not only selected but also was issued with the order of engagement vide order dtd.11.08.2009 under Annexure-8. But Opp. party No.2 without proper appreciation of the residence of the Petitioner, initially, vide order dtd.20.09.2009 under Annexure-4, while cancelling the residence Certificate, issued direction on the Tahasildar in that regard, also issued a direction to give engagement to the next eligible candidate. Petitioner challenging both the direction moved Collector, Bolangir by filing two(2) separate Appeal in Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2009 and 9 of 2009. Collector, Bolangir-Opp. Party No.1 vide order under Annexure-5, though remitted the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, but once again Opp. Party No.2 without proper appreciation of the documents provided by the Petitioner with regard to her residential status allowed the appeal so filed by Opp. party No.4 vide the impugned order dtd.06.05.2011 under Anenxure-6. It is contended that since Petitioner belongs to the Centre area and without proper appreciation of the documents produced in that regard, Opp. Party No.2 has set aside the selection and engagement of the Petitioner, the impugned order requires interference of this Court. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. party No.4 when made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contending inter alia that Petitioner does not belong to the Centre area and the residence Certificate obtained and produced by her at the time of selection has been cancelled and made the submission that the impugned order dtd.06.05.2011 under Annexure-6 has been rightly passed, this Court passed the following order on 04.08.2026. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Considering the dispute involved, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is directed to provide the residence certificate so produced by the Petitioner at the time making her application pursuant to the advertisement issued on 22.06.2009. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State is also directed to produce the residence certificate of the Petitioner and so also Opposite Party No.4 that was submitted by both the candidates at the time of making their application. As requested by Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, list this matter on 21st August, 2026. Free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. S. Das, learned ASC for compliance. 7. Pursuant to the order dtd.04.08.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced Resident Certificate of both the Petitioner as well as private Opp. party No.4 in Court. Taking this Court to the Resident certificate produced by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for Opp. party No.4 contended that, in the Resident Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, she was shown as the resident of Village Dabjori. However, in the residence certificate of Opp. party No.4, she was shown as resident of Debjori (Bhandaribanji), where the Centre situates. It is accordingly contended that Opp. party No.2 has rightly interfered with the selection and engagement of the Petitioner with passing of the order dtd.06.05.2011 under Annexure-6. 7.1. It is contended that since Petitioner does not reside within the centre area which is a requirement as per guideline issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 under Anenxure-2, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order and the Writ Petition is liable for dismissal. Para 1 of the revised guideline dtd.2.05.2007 reads as follows: Revised Guidelines for Selection of Anganwadi Workers 1. Applications for selection of Volunteers to work as Anganwadi Workers will be invited for each village/Anganwadi Center area from women residing in the said village/Anganwadi Center area. 8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel also made similar submission contending inter alia that since Opp. party No.2 while dealing with the appeal field by Opp. party No.4 found that Petitioner does not belong to Centre area and he directed for cancellation of the Resident certificate so issued in her favour, the said Resident Certificate was cancelled by the Tahasildar. 8.1. It is also contended that since from the document produced in Court, it is apparent that Petitioner does not belong to the Centre area and Opp. party No.4 in fact is a resident of the Centre area, Opp. party No.2 has rightly allowed the appeal vide order dtd.06.05.2011 under Annexure-6. However, because of the interim order passed by this Court Petitioner is continuing as Anganwadi Worker of the Centre in question. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that pursuant to the notification issued by the CDPO, Saintala, Opp. party No.3 on 22.06.2009, Petitioner along with others made their application for engagement in respect of Bhandarbanji additional Anganwadi Centre. In the said selection process, Petitioner when was selected and engaged vide order dtd.11.08.2009 under Anenxure-8, Opp. Party No.4 challenging such selection and engagement approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.12875 of 2009. This Court when permitted the Petitioner to move Sub-Collector, Titlagarh-Opp. party No.2 in Appeal , Appeal Case No.165 of 2009 was filed by Opp. party No.4 challenging the selection and engagement of the Petitioner. 9.1. The said appeal when was allowed vide order dtd.20.09.2009 under Anenxure-4, Petitioner challenging the same approached the Collector, Bolangir-Opp. Party No.1 by filing Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2009 and Misc. Appeal No.09 of 2009. Though Collector, Bolangir vide order under Annexure-5, remitted the matter for fresh disposal, but on such remand of the matter, Opp. party No.2 while deciding the issue, came to a conclusion that Petitioner does not belong to the Centre Area. While holding so vide order dtd.06.05.2011 under Anenxure-6, Opp. Party No.2 directed for engagement of Opp. party No.4. However, because of the interim order passed by this Court, Petitioner is continuing as Anganwadi Worker of the Centre. 9.2. This Court after going through the documents available in the case record, more particularly, the Resident Certificate produced by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel in Court today, pursuant to order dtd.04.08.2026, finds that Petitioner does not belong to the Centre Area, which is a requirement, as per the guideline issued by the Government on 02.05.2007 under Annexure-2. No document has been filed by the Petitioner enclosing the Resident certificate, showing therein that Petitioner belongs to the Centre Area. 9.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the guideline governing the field, more particularly Para-1 of the guideline dtd.02.05.2007 under Annexure-2, this Court is of the view that Opp. party No.2 has rightly set side the selection and engagement of the Petitioner vide order dtd.06.05.2011 under Anenxure-6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order and dismiss the Writ Petition. 10. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita