Safiya Malik

The Orissa High Court has upheld the fresh selection process for the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker after examining the appellate decision regarding discrepancies in the selection procedure. The case cantered on a challenge against the selection of an Anganwadi Worker, where the court addressed procedural lapses and competing claims regarding the eligibility criteria.

The dispute arose regarding the selection of an Anganwadi Worker for Nijigarh Kurkhi-1 Anganwadi Center. The selection process initially included two candidates, the appellant, Mamata Samantaray, and respondent no.6, Tikina Mallick. The advertisement for the post was issued, and both candidates applied in response. Following the evaluation of marks, the appellant was found to have secured the highest score and was consequently selected for the post.

However, respondent no.6 raised objections, arguing that the selection process was flawed due to incorrect information in the advertisement regarding the villages included in the service area. Complaints were lodged by villagers before the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Pipili, who in turn placed the matter before the Selection Committee. As a result, the selection of the appellant was put on hold.

A meeting of the Selection Committee, presided over by the Sub-Collector, Puri, was held on April 6, 2013, where it was decided to cancel the previous advertisement and issue a fresh notification for the selection process. The committee's decision was based on allegations of errors in the original advertisement, particularly concerning the specified service area.

The appellant challenged the decision before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), who, in his appellate capacity, reviewed the matter. The ADM upheld the decision of the Selection Committee to initiate a fresh selection process, citing procedural correctness and the need to ensure fairness. Respondent no.6 then moved the writ court, challenging the appellate authority’s decision and seeking direct appointment.

In her appeal before the writ court, respondent no.6 argued that the Selection Committee lacked the authority to cancel the previous selection process after finalizing the appointment. She further contended that the cancellation amounted to a review of an already concluded process, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the committee. The writ court ruled in favor of respondent no.6, setting aside the appellate authority’s order and directing that she be appointed to the post.

Upon appeal, the High Court examined whether the Selection Committee possessed the authority to cancel the selection process and whether the appellate authority’s order was legally sustainable. The court examined the records and found that a joint inquiry had been conducted by the Tahasildar, Pipili, CDPO, Pipili, and the Revenue Inspector of Kanti. The inquiry report revealed that both the appellant and respondent no.6 were residents of the service area.

The High Court referenced key portions of the appellate order, stating: "Further, the Tahasildar, Pipili, and C.D.P.O, Pipili directed an inquiry on the residence of the two candidates. It reveals from the joint inquiry report conducted by the Tahasildar, Pipili, C.D.P.O, Pipili, and R.I, Kanti that both the appellant and the intervenor reside under the service area of Nijigarh Kurkhi-I Anganwadi Centre. The name of the appellant finds place against serial number 110 of the Family Survey Register and the name of the intervenor finds place against serial number 140 of the Family Survey Register of Nijigarh Kurkhi-I Anganwadi Centre."

Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the appellant had been wrongly disqualified from the original selection process based on an incorrect determination of her residence status. The appellate authority had therefore rightly reinstated the appellant’s eligibility and upheld the necessity of a fresh selection process to rectify the procedural irregularities.

The High Court also examined the nature of the appeal process before the ADM. It observed that while the appellant had not initially filed an appeal, she later intervened when she became aware that respondent no.6 was seeking direct appointment through the appellate process. The court stated: "Where the selection process rendered appellant unsuccessful, and order of engagement was not issued to the successful candidate who preferred appeal, we do not see appellant stood aggrieved by the situation. It follows; she did not appeal. When she came to know her competitor, who had secured fewer marks, had preferred an appeal, to protect her interest she applied to intervene and got herself added."

The court further examined whether the Selection Committee had the authority to order a fresh selection process. It noted that the committee had received complaints from villagers regarding errors in the advertisement. The appellate authority had subsequently conducted a thorough inquiry, after which it found merit in conducting a fresh selection process rather than issuing an appointment directly.

The High Court also addressed the argument that the Selection Committee lacked review powers, stating that while such powers were indeed limited, the fresh selection process was justified in light of the procedural errors identified. The court concluded that the writ court had erroneously interfered with the appellate order, as the latter was based on proper procedural review and factual findings.

The High Court set aside the writ court’s judgment and reinstated the appellate authority’s decision. It stated that the fresh selection process should be upheld, and appointments should be made in accordance with the original advertisement, subject to due process.

"Impugned judgment is reversed in appeal. The appellate order is restored. The appeal is disposed of."

Case Title: Mamata Samantaray v. State of Odisha and Others
Case Number: WA No. 361 of 2025
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha, and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

[Read/Download order]