Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 6782 of 2013 Mamata Khilar @ Barik ..... Petitioner Mr. D. Samal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.07.2026 Order No. 07 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. None appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 5 on repeated occasion. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Therefore, the petitioner humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, consider the same and after hearing issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari shall not be issued against the Opp. parties by quashing Annexure-8 and directing them to select/appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in respect of Choumukh-10 Centre under Baliapal Block; Page 2 of 4. And if the Opp. parties show no cause or show insufficient cause then the said Rule may be made absolute against the Opp. parties by issue a writ of certiorari by quashing Annexure-8. And pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as would be deemed fit and proper; And fort this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that challenging the selection and engagement of Opp. Party No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker of Choumukha Anganwadi Centre-10 coming under Opp. Party No. 2, Petitioner preferred an appeal so registered as Anganwadi Appeal Case No. 93/2010. However, Opp. Party No. 3 without proper appreciation of the grounds of appeal, rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.21.12.2012 under Annexure-8. 4.1. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since Opp. Party No. 5 is not a resident coming under the service area of Choumukha Anganwadi Centre-10, the said Opp. Party could not have been selected and engaged as Anganwadi Worker of the Centre in question. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a report submitted by the Tahasildar, Baliapal on dtd.30.11.2012 under Annexure-5. 4.2. It is contended that since in the said report, Tahasildar opined that as per 2010 survey list, name of Opp. Party No. 5 along with her family was deleted from the survey list of Choumukha-04 Anganwadi Centre, and as per the survey made for the purpose of Page 3 of 4. National Population Register, Opp. Party No. 5 was recorded as a separate family along with her husband and two children, the said Opp. Party could not have been taken as a resident of the service are coming under Choumukha-10 Anganwadi Centre. 4.3. However, without proper appreciation of the report so submitted by the Tahasildar under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No. 3 rejected the appeal while confirming the selection and engagement of Opp. Party No. 5. It is accordingly contended that in view of the report submitted by the Tahasildar under Annexure-5, the appeal could not have been rejected on the ground indicated therein. 5. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand relying on the self-same report submitted by the Tahasildar, contended that since in the said report, Tahasildar has opined that Opp. Party No. 5 is residing within the service area coming under Choumukha-10, Anganwadi Centre, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 5.1. It is also contended that after completion of the selection process pursuant to advertisement dtd.26.05.2010 so issued under Annexure- 1, Opp. Party No. 5 was duly engaged as Anganwadi Worker of Choumukha-10 Anganwadi Centre w.e.f. the year 2010 with her date of joining as 16.07.2010. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim has been duly considered and rejected vide the impugned order and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that challenging the selection and engagement of Opp. Party No. 5 as A.W. Worker Page 4 of 4. in Choumukha-10 Anganwadi Centre, Petitioner moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 in Anganwadi Appal Case No. 93/2010. However, the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide the impugned order dtd.21.12.2012 under Annexure-8. 6.1. This Court taking into account the report available under Annexure-5, is of the view that in the said report, the Tahasildar has clearly opined that Opp. Party No. 5 is residing within the service area of Choumukha-10 Anganwadi Centre as per 2010 survey list. 6.2. In view the report so available under Annexure-5, it is the view of this Court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 in rejecting the appeal so filed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with order dt.21.12.2012 under Annexure-8 and dismiss the writ petition. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha