IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6543 of 2012 Swarnalata Panigrahi …. Petitioner Mr. S. Patra-1, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. R.C. Rath, Advocate for O.P. No.6 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 01.07.2026 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 02.04.2012, so passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order, selection and engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Gahiragadia Sabarsahi Anganwadi Centre under ICDS Project, Banki was cancelled and the selection committee was directed for selection and engagement of private Opp. Party No.6 in place of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the notification issued by the C.D.P.O., Banki-O.P. No.5, petitioner made the application along with others and on being found eligible in all respect, he was provided with the order of engagement vide order dated 21.08.2010 under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is further contended that subsequent to such engagement of the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2010, C.D.P.O., Banki by causing a proper enquiry, came to a definite conclusion that petitioner is residing within the service area of the Centre in question so available under Annexure-2. 4.2. However, when private Opp. Party No.6 challenged the selection and engagement of the petitioner and moved an appeal in Anganwadi Appeal No.66 of 2010 before Opp. Party No.3, Opp. Party No.3 solely relying on a report submitted by the Sub-Collector, Banki on 13.02.2012 under Annexure-A/4, set-aside the selection and engagement of the petitioner and with a direction to provide appointment to the private Opp. Party No.6. 4.3. It is contended that since report of the Sub- Collector, Banki dated 13.02.2012 is an ex-parte report and petitioner was never given an opportunity to have her say in the said enquiry, basing on such ex-parte enquiry report, petitioner’s selection and engagement could not have been set aside with passing of the impugned order dated 02.04.2012 under Annexure-5. 4.4. It is also contended that petitioner is a permanent resident coming within the service area of the Centre and Opp. Party No.4 without proper appreciation and without causing due enquiry in accordance with law and by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, could not have submitted the report under Annexure- A/4, basing on which petitioner’s engagement was set aside. 4.5. It is however contended that, in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.04.2012, petitioner is continuing as an Anganwadi Worker as on date and in the meantime, she has already worked for more than 16 years. 4.6. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos.2 to 5. It is contended that subsequent to engagement of the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2010 under Annexure-1, when the selection and engagement of the petitioner was challenged by the private Opp. Party No.6 and Opp. Party No.4 was directed to submit a report as to whether petitioner is a resident of the service area of the Centre in question and Opp. Party No.4 in his report available under Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.6, reported that petitioner’s residence is not coming within the service area, basing on such report of Opp. Party No.4, selection and engagement of the petitioner was set aside by Opp. Party No.3 vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2012 under Annexure-5. 5.1. It is contended that since Sub-Collector, Banki- Opp. Party No.4 in his report dated 13.02.2012 under Annexure-A/4, come to a conclusion that petitioner’s residence is not coming within the service area, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Similar submission was also made by Mr. R.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for private Opp. Party No.6. It is however contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court, petitioner is continuing in her job as on date. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner on being found eligible, was extended with the benefit of engagement as an Anganwadi Worker of Gahiragadia Sabarsahi Anganwadi Centre vide order dated 21.08.2010 under Annexure-1. 7.1. As further found, after such engagement of the petitioner when an allegation was made that petitioner is not a resident of the service area, CDPO, Banki-Opp. Party No.5 in her report so available under Annexure-2, indicated that petitioner’s residence is coming within the service area of the Centre. 7.2. However, it is found that basing on the report submitted by the Sub-Collector-O.P. No.4 on 13.02.2012 under Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.6, Opp. Party No.3 allowed the appeal so filed by Opp. Party No.6 and while allowing the appeal, quashed the selection and engagement of the petitioner. 7.3. This Court is of the view that basing on an ex- parte enquiry report so submitted by the Sub-Collector- Opp. Party No.4 on 13.02.2012 under Annexure-A/4, no such order could have been passed by Opp. Party No.3 directing for dis-engagement of the petitioner. Since no document is available in the case record showing that petitioner was a party to the enquiry and since no document is also available showing the service area of the Centre, this Court is in absence of all these documents, is of the view that basing on Annexure-A/4 report only, the impugned order could not have been passed by Opp. Party No.3. 7.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 02.04.2012 so passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-5. While quashing the said order, this Court directs the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioner to continue in her engagement in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev