Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No. 2740 of 2018 Pravina Bhatra ..... Petitioner Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 07.01.2025 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.26.04.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order Anganwadi Workers with having HSC qualification and completed 10 years of experience were provisionally engaged as ICDS Supervisor on contractual basis. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the gradation list of Anganwadi Workers published under Annexure-2, Petitioner though was at Sl. No. 53, but she was not extended with the benefit of promotion when persons placed below her i.e. Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 9 were given such benefit vide impugned order dtd.26.04.2018 under Annexure-4. Page 2 of 3. 4.1. It is contended that since in the gradation list Petitioner was placed above the persons who were promoted vide impugned order more particularly Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 9, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that pursuant to the gradation list published under Annexure-2 and when steps were taken to consider the eligibility of eligible Anganwadi Workers to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of ICDS Supervisor, candidates appointed against reserved vacancies as like the Petitioner were directed to produce the caste certificate afresh from the competent authority. 5.1. It is contended that while other reserve candidates produced such fresh caste certificates, but Petitioner failed to produce the same. Accordingly, since Petitioner could not produce the fresh caste certificate, her case was not considered by the Selection Committee in its proceeding dtd.21.03.2018. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the direction issued by the C.D.P.O., Petitioner failed to produce a fresh caste certificate, she was not considered to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of ICDS Supervisor. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. To the stand taken in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though after being apprised about the requirement to produce the fresh caste certificate, Petitioner made an application before the concerned Tahasildar, but that was never issued. It is contended that since at the time of her appointment, Petitioner had produced the caste certificate, there was Page 3 of 3. no such requirement to produce a fresh caste certificate. It is however fairly that contended as on date Petitioner has not obtained fresh caste certificate even though an application to that effect has been made on 12.08.2016. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the materials placed before this Court, it is found that impugned order dtd.26.04.2018 was issued allowing benefit of engagement of eligible Anganwadi Workers as ICDS Supervisor on contractual basis. It is also found that Petitioner’s claim was not considered by the selection committee even though she was placed above the Private Opp. Parties, on the ground that Petitioner failed to produce a fresh caste certificate as desired by the authority. 7.1. Since Petitioner never challenged such action of the authority in asking for a fresh caste certificate, the ground taken by the Petitioner that no such direction could have been issued to produce a fresh caste certificate is not acceptable to this Court. Since admittedly Petitioner has not yet obtained a fresh caste certificate in terms of the letter issued by the C.D.P.O. on 30.12.2016, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.26.04.2018. It is open for the Petitioner to obtain the caste certificate afresh and raise her claim to get the benefit in which this Court expresses no opinion. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Designation: Sr. Stenographer