p. 1 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.2798 of 2026 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Namita Behera … Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner :Mr. B.K.Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Parties :Ms. B.L.Tripathy, ASC Mr.S.Mohapatra, Advocate (for the O.P. No.5) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 10.03.2026 p. 2 JUDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) passed in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Petitioner has been working as an Anganwadi Worker of Budhipadar Anganwadi Centre under Padmanpur Grama Panchayat in the District of Boudh since 14.10.2024 on being appointed for the same through an appointment order dated 09.10.2024 issued by the C.D.P.O., Boudh (O.P. No.4). 3. The O.P. No.5 in this writ petition i.e. Malati Sahu challenged to the above appointment of the Petitioner preferring an appeal vide RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 before the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) against the Petitioner in this writ petition and others arraying the p. 3 Petitioner as Respondent No.6 in that RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024. 4. The Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) passed final order in that RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 on dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) allowing that RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 and quashed the entire selection process relating to the selection of the Petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Budhipadar Anganwadi Centre under Padmanpur Grama Panchayat in pursuance to the advertisement invited by the C.D.P.O., Boudh (O.P. No.4) vide Letter No.1199 dated 14.08.2024. 5. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) passed by the O.P. No.2 in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 against the Petitioner Namita Behera, she (Namita Behera) challenged the same filing this writ petition being the Petitioner against Malati Sahu (Appellant in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024) and others arraying her as O.P. No.5 in this writ petition and others as other O.Ps praying for quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) passed in RMA (AWW) Case p. 4 No.08 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) on the ground that, the said impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) has been passed by the O.P. No.2 in complete violation of the principles of natural justice without issuing any notice to her (Petitioner) and without giving any opportunity of being heard to her. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.5. 7. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the learned counsels of both the sides fairly submitted that, in fact, the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) has been passed in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) without complying the principles of natural justice i.e. without issuing any notice to the Petitioner and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, though, she (Petitioner in this writ petition) was the Respondent No.6 in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024. Page 5 of 7 8. It appears from the Annexure-6 Series that, no notice has been issued to the Petitioner of this writ petition in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024, though, she (Petitioner of this writ petition) was Respondent No.6 in that RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 and no opportunity of hearing has been given to her (Petitioner of this writ petition), but, in that impugned order, her appointment order as an Anganwadi Worker of Budhipadar Anganwadi Centre was indirectly cancelled. 9. As per the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides as well as from the contents of the Annexure- 6 series, it is held that, the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) has been passed in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. It is the settled propositions of law that, if any order or judgment is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed. Because, violation of principles of natural justice renders the impugned order as nullity. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open. Page 6 of 7 On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr. reported in 1988 (2) SCC 602 in Para No.55 (Seven Judges Bench) that, Violation of principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity. (ii) In a case between Dattu Namdev Thakur Vs State Of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 SCW 203 that, When, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed. (iii) In a case between Asit Kumar Kar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors reported in (2009) 2 AWC 1628 that, An order having adverse consequences should not be passed without hearing the person affected thereby. (iv) In a case between Durgawati Singh And Ors. vs Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits Lucknow and others decided in Special Appeal No.497 of 2021 (Allahabad) that, Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open. 11. As per the discussions and observations made above, when, it is held that, the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) has been passed in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) in violation of the principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, by applying the ratio of the above decisions to the impugned order, it is felt proper to quash the said impugned order by interfering with the same. Page 7 of 7 Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the Petitioner, the same is to be allowed. 12. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-6 series) passed in RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) is quashed. The matter vide RMA (AWW) Case No.08 of 2024 is remitted back to the Addl. District Magistrate, Boudh (O.P. No.2) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties thereof including the Petitioner in this writ petition in full compliance of the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this judgment by any of the Parties. 13. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 10 .03. 2026// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer