LexCHARULATA BEHERA versus PRAVATI PARIDA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 1 S.C.R. 844 CHARULATA BEHERA v. PRAVATI PARIDA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1322 of 2015) JANUARY 30, 2015 [ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Service Law: C Appointment - As Anganwadi Worker - Of the appellant - Set aside by appellate authority vide order dated 26.12.2009- High court in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 passed direction to implement the order dated 26. 12. 2009 - Writ petition challenging the decision of D Selection Committee dismissed on the ground that there was no illegality in the selection process of the appellant - Writ appeal - Appointment of appellant set aside on the ground that the order dated 26. 12. 2009 was not complied with - As a result respondent No. 1 appointed - On appeal, held: The E High Court order was passed without looking into the relevant facts - Jurisdiction u!Art. 226 should not be exercised on mere technicalities especially if the result of such exercise amounted to perpetuation of illegality - Appointment of respondent No. 1 was illegal as she did not have the eligibility F qualification for appointment to the post - Appellant's appointment revived - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No(s), 1322 of 2015. G From the judgment and Order dated 18.07.2011 of the H High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W. A. No. 430 of 2010. Shwetaketu Mishra, S. K. Das (For V. K. Monga) for the Appellant. 844 CHARULATA BEHERA v. PRAVATI PARIDA & ORS. 845 Avijit Patnaik, S. Mohanty (For Amarjit Singh Bedi), A shibashish Misra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Heard the parties. Leave granted. 2. The appellant as well as respondent no.1 applied in response to an advertisement dated 02.02.2009 for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Urumukhi-3 Anganwadi Center, Bhushandpur, Tangi, Odisha. She is aggrieved by the judgment under appeal dated 18.07.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Orissa High Court set aside the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 09.08.2010. The effect of the impugned order/judgment is to allow the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 and as a result selection and appointment of the appellant stands set aside and instead respondent no.1 has been appointed as Anganwadi Worker for the concerned centre. 3. The moot question to be answered in this appeal is whether the Division Bench should have allowed the writ appeal only on technicalities and on the basis of certain orders passed earlier when on facts there was no ambiguity that respondent no.1 was not a resident of the concerned centre and hence lacked the basic eligibility for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for the centre. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the relevant orders and enquiry reports which show that even before the appellant was engaged, as soon as respondent no.1 came to know that in the selection process appellant had secured highest marks and was likely to be engaged, she approached appellate/higher authority - respondent no.3, the Sub-Collector, Khurda. By order dated 26.12.2009, respondent no.3 noticed ttrat appellant's sister was engaged as Anganwadi ' Worker in another centre and, therefore, without waiting for the B c D E F G H 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A order of engagement, as appellate authority - respondent no.3 set aside the orders selecting the appellant and the matter was remanded back to the Child Development Project Officer - respondent no.4 to reconsider the case of the respondent no.1 as per the Government guidelines. The Selection Committee B reconsidered the relevant facts in a meeting held on 04.06.2010 attended by five members of the Selection Committee including the Sub-Collector, Khurda who had remanded the matter for reconsideration. The minutes of the proceedings of Selection Committee dated 04.06.2010 have c also been signed by Sub-Collector, Khurda and they disclose that appellant was found to be the most eligible candidate for appointment. In the meantime, respondent no.1 had preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)No.9300 of 2010 in which her simple grievance was that order of Sub-Collector, Khurda dated D 26.12.2009 was not being implemented. That writ petition was disposed of on 20.05.2010 with a direction to implement the order of Sub-Collector within four weeks. 5. Respondent no.1 challenged th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.