DR. B.R. SARANGI, J
1. The petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Buromunda Anganwadi Centre No.5 of village Boromunda of
Gaisilat Block in the district of Baragarh, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash order no. 628 dated 27.07.2010 at Annexure-6 engaging opposite
party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, so also the order dated 27.12.2012 at Annexure-7 passed by the A.D.M.,
Bargarh dismissing AWW Appeal No.16 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that as per the decision of the Government, five Anganwadi Centers were opened in village Buromunda
and a survey list for demarcating the Anganwadi Center area was prepared. The C.D.P.O., Gaisilat issued an advertisement on 11.12.2009 for
engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5. In the said advertisement, it was indicated that the candidates, who
belonged to Anganwadi Center area, are eligible to apply as per the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007. Pursuant to such advertisement, the
petitioner, opposite party no.5 and one Kumari Girisuta Sahu submitted their applications. But the villagers, after coming to know that opposite party
no.5 is a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, filed written objections before the B.D.O.,
Gaisilat and concerned C.D.P.O., Gaisilat and sought for cancellation of her candidature on the ground that opposite party no.5 and her family
members do not reside within the service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, but in the survey list the surveyor intentionally inserted the
name of the husband of opposite party no.5 only to show that the opposite party no.5 is the resident of service area of Buromunda Angnawadi Center
No.5. It was specifically pleaded that the survey list was prepared by one Labanga Pradhan, who is working as Anganwadi Worker in Buromunda
Anganwadi Center No.2 and she, being the sister-in-law of opposite party no.5, intentionally inserted her brother‟s name, Chaubarga Pradhan within
the centre area only to engage opposite party no.5 in Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5.
2.1 On receipt of such complaint, the B.D.O., Gaisilat on 04.01.2010 issued a letter to the S.E.O., Gaisilat Block to cause an enquiry and submit
report. Accordingly, the Medical Officer, CHC, Gaisilat and I/c. S.E.O., Gaisilat Block on 08.01.2010 conducted an enquiry and submitted report
before the B.D.O., Gaisilat. Thereafter, on 22.01.2010, the B.D.O., Gaisilat submitted the enquiry report to the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat. In the said enquiry
report it was found that the survey list was prepared by one Labanga Pradhan with an intention to absorb opposite party no.5 in the Buromunda
Anganwadi Center No.5, and she intentionally reflected the name of husband of opposite party no.5 at serial no. 42 and that the said Labanga Pradhan
is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.5. But the concerned C.D.P.O., Gaisilat, after receiving such enquiry report, did not take into consideration the
same as well as the complaint submitted by the villagers of the said Anganwadi Center no.5, Sarapanch and one Kumari Garisuta Sahu, and submitted
comparative statement of marks before the selection committee. Accordingly, the selection committee selected opposite party no.5, as she had
secured highest mark, and the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat, vide letter dated 27.07.2010, engaged opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda
Anganwadi Center No.5 and directed to join on or before 03.08.2010.
2.2 Aggrieved by such engagement of opposite party no.5, the petitioner preferred AWW Appeal No. 16 of 2011 before the Addl. District Magistrate,
Bargarh challenging the process of selection and engagement of Anganwadi Worker in Buromunda Anganwadi Center No. 5 on the ground that
opposite party no.5 is not the resident of the said Anganwadi Center area, and that as per the guidelines opposite party no.5 is not eligible for the said
post. It was specifically pleaded that opposite party no.5 is the resident of service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.2 and the said fact was
brought to the notice of the authorities by the villagers, concerned Sarapanch and one candidate, namely, Girisuta Sahu by filing objection. On the basis
of such objection, the concerned B.D.O., Gaisilat directed for enquiry and in the said inquiry it was found that opposite party no.5 is not resident of the
service area of Anganwadi Center No. 5, but one Labang Prdhan, who is the sister-in-law of opposite party no.5, prepared the survey list of the said
Anganwadi Center No.5 falsely inserting the name of the husband of opposite party no.5 at serial no. 42 only to show that the opposite party no.5 is
the resident of Anganwadi Center No.5 area. The A.D.M., Bargarh, while hearing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, without going through the
objection, enquiry report and other grounds taken by her, accepted the version of the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat that said objection and enquiry report was
placed before the selection committee and the selection committee did not accept the objection and enquiry report, and came to hold that the petitioner
failed to prove her claim in course of hearing, and that the Sub-Collector, Padampur, who was the Chairman of the selection committee, signed the
comparative statement on 23.07.2010 and consequentially the order of engagement was issued in favour of opposite party no.5 and, therefore, no fault
can be found with the same. By so holding, the A.D.M., Bargarh dismissed AWW Appeal No. 16 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner vide order dated
27.12.2012. Hence this writ petition.
3. Mr. S.P. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in support of her stand taken in the appeal the petitioner had relied upon
photocopy of the documents, but without going through those documents the finding arrived at by the learned ADM is an outcome of non-application
of mind. The learned ADM simply accepted the version of the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat that enquiry report was placed before the selection committee,
particularly when the said enquiry report was prepared by the SEO I/c, Gaisilat Block and the Medical Officer, CHC Gaisilat, who were also
members of the selection committee. It is further contended that the CDPO, Gaislet, only with an ulterior motive, placed before the selection
committee the survey list of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, in which the name of the husband of opposite party no.5 is placed at serial no. 42, to
prove that opposite party no.5 is a resident of service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center no.5. Accordingly, comparative statement of marks was
prepared and the selection committee, without going through the objection and enquiry report, selected opposite party no.5, as she had secured highest
percentage of marks. It is further contended that the said comparative statement was not signed by the B.D.O., Gaisilat, who was a member of the
selection committee, but the learned ADM, in the order impugned erroneously, stated that the Sub-Collector, Padampur as well as other members
signed the said comparative statement, for which the order impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that the petitioner
submitted before the learned ADM the voter list of village Buromunda of the year 2010, in which the names of entire family members of opposite
party no.5 are reflected at serial nos. 1498 to 1503, which indicates that the entire family members are residing in one house bearing house no. 375. In
the said voter list, it has also been indicated that Labanga Pradhan, who has prepared the survey list of Buromunda Anganwadi Center no.5, is the
sister-in-law of opposite party no.5, and that Purandhar Pradhan is the father-in-law of opposite party no.5, who is the head of the family and they are
residing in one house. As per the entire survey list in Annexure-1, which was prepared for demarcating the center area, the name of father-in-law of
opposite party no.5 as head of family is indicated at serial no. 410, which comes under the service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.2.
Therefore, even though the entire family of opposite party no.5 resides in one house, which comes under the service area of Buromunda Angnawadi
Center No.2, Labanga Pradhan cunningly inserted the name of her brother at serial no. 42 showing the opposite party no.5 as a resident of service
area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, but, the learned ADM, Baragarh has not taken into consideration this aspect in proper perspective.
Therefore, petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the learned ADM, Bargarh, as well as the order of engagement
dated 27.07.2010 issued by the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat in favour of opposite party no.5 engaging her as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi
Center No.5.
4. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, Mr. A. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State
opposite parties supported the order impugned and contended that the learned ADM, Bargarh is well justified in passing the order impugned, which
cannot be interfered with by this Court.
5. Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5 supported the arguments advanced by Mr. A. Rath, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State, and contended that the order impugned passed by the learned ADM, Bargarh, as well as continuance of opposite party no.5 as
Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5 is well justified, as she was engaged by following due procedure of selection by the
selection committee, in which the Sub-Collector was the Chairman. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard Mr. S.P. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. A. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State opposite
parties; and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party no.5; and perused the record. None of the opposite parties have filed their counter
affidavit. Since it is a certiorari proceeding and an old matter of the year 2013, with the consent of the parties, it is being finally disposed of at the
stage of admission.
7. On the basis of the factual matrix, as discussed above, admittedly, as per the decision of the Government, Buromunda village was divided into five
Anganwadi Centers. A survey list was prepared house-wise, according to which, the service area of Anganwadi Center No.3 was from serial no. 1 to
83, Anganwadi Center No.1 was from serial no. 84 to 265, Anganwadi Center no.4 was from serial no. 255 to 357, Angnawadi Center No.2 was from
serial no. 358 to 450, and Angnawadi Center No. 5 was from serial no. 451 to 548. So far as survey list of Angnawadi Center No.2 is concerned,
which has been annexed as Annexure-1, at page-24, the name of the father-in-law of opposite no.5-Purandar Pradhan has been mentioned at serial
no. 410 under the heading “head of the family nameâ€, and the number of family members has also been mentioned at serial no. 410 that male-2,
female-3 and total-5 and they belonged to OBC category. If the same is corroborated with the voter list prepared in the year 2010 of Bijepur
constituency, part no. 196 of village Buromunda, vide Annexure-8 available at page-56 and 57 of the brief, it will be seen that the name of Purandar
Pradhan has been indicated at serial no. 1499, the name of opposite party no.5, wife of Chaubarga Pradhan, has been indicated at serial no. 1498, the
name of Chaubarga Pradhan, who is the son of Purandar Pradhan, has been indicated at serial no. 1502, Similarly, the name of Labanga Pradhan, who
is the daughter of Purandar Pradhan, has been indicated at serial no. 1501. It is clearly evident therefrom that they all reside in one house, i.e., house
no. 375 and Purandar Pradhan is the head of the family and the names of all the family members have been indicated at serial no. 1498 to 1503
including the name of the husband of the opposite party no.5. The survey list of Buromunda Angnawadi Centre No.2, which was prepared by
Chadraprava Deep, contained house no. 358 to 450, which includes the house of Purandar Pradhan at serial no.410, whereas in the survey list of
Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, which was prepared by Labanga Pradhan, who is the daughter of Purandar Pradhan and sister-in-law of
opposite party no.5, the name of Choubarg Pradhan, brother of Labanga Pradhan has been included at serial no. 42 in order to facilitate the opposite
party no.5 to be considered for selection as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the
inhabitants of service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, an enquiry was conducted by the S.E.O. I/c and the Medical Officer, CHC,
Gaisilat, who submitted a report placed at page-41 of the brief. Even though the said report was placed by the B.D.O., Gaisilat before the C.D.P.O.,
Gaisilat, but the latter did not place the same before the selection committee and on the other hand prepared a comparative statement vide Annexure-
5, relying upon which the opposite party no.5, having secured 49.93% of marks, was selected. Though the same was signed by the Sub-Collector,
Medical Officer, S.E.O. I/c. and CDPO, Gaisilat on 23.07.2010, the BDO did not put his signature.
8. At this juncture, it is of relevance to note that the enquiry report, which was prepared by the S.E.O. I/c. and the Medical Officer on the request
made by the B.D.O., clearly reveals that opposite party no.5 does not belong to the service area of Anganwadi Center No. 5. Therefore, it can be
safely inferred that such enquiry report has not been considered in proper perspective by the learned ADM while considering the appeal. At the same
time, it can also not be lost sight of that the C.D.P.O., Gaisilat, in course of hearing of appeal, had submitted that the objections and enquiry report, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had been placed before the selection committee prior to selection and the selection committee,
after perusal of the objections and enquiry report, was convinced that the objections raised were not true and thus not accepted by the committee.
Thereby, being an appellate authority, the learned ADM ought to have applied his mind to the same before coming to such an erroneous finding.
9. A bare perusal of the documents, which have been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition, would clearly indicate that in order to give
engagement to opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, the comparative statement was prepared ignoring
the objections raised by the inhabitants of the service area of Buromunda Anganwadi Center No.5, but the learned ADM, Bargarh, without applying
his mind on that aspect of the matter, has committed a grave error, which is apparent on the face of record, and dismissed the appeal by the order
impugned, which cannot sustain in the eye of law.
10. If the entire facts and circumstances behind the selection and engagement of opposite party no.5 as Anganwadi Worker of Buromunda
Angnawadi Center No.5 are critically analyzed, it would be clearly evident that in order to select only opposite party no.5 and none else a consortium
effort has been made right from the beginning. That is why opposite party no.5 has been erroneously shown as a resident of the service area by
including the name of her husband in the survey list of Buromunda Angnawadi Center No.5, which was prepared by none else but sister-in-law of
opposite party no.5. The persons, who were causing enquiry, namely, the Medical Officer, CHC, Gaisilat and I/c SEO, Gaisilat Block at the instance
of the BDO into the objections raised against the opposite party no.5, were the members of the selection committee. All these irregularities taken
together would clearly indicate that those who involved in the helm of affairs of selection of opposite party no.5 were all connived and bent upon to
select only opposite party no.5 and such action of the selection committee violates the very principle of natural justice.
11. The rule of natural justice is nemo judex in causa sua, i.e., no man shall be a judge of his own cause.
12. Similarly, aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa, quia non potest esse judex et pars, which means, non man ought to be a judge in his
own case, because he cannot act as judge and at the same time be a party. The form nemo potest esse simul actor et judex, i.e., „ no man can be
at once suitor and judge‟ is also at times uses as violation of principle of natural justice.
13. The law of bias rests on the maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa, i.e., no man can be a judge in his own cause.
14. In R. v. Bowstreet Metropolitan Stipendary Magistrate, (1999) 1 All ER 577, it has been held that if the matter at issue does not relate to money or
economic advantage but is concerned with the promotion of a cause, the rationale of disqualifying a judge automatically applied equally in that case
also. If the absolute impartiality of the judiciary is to be maintained, there must be a rule which automatically disqualifies a judge, who is involved,
whether personally or in any official capacity in promoting the same causes in the same organization as is a party to the suit.
15. In R. v. Sussed Justices, ex p. Mc Carthy, [1923] All ER Rep 233, Lord Hewart, CJ’s famous dictum is to be observed: it is „of
fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done‟.
16. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 : (1969) 2 SCC 262, the apex Court held that the principle that no man can be a judge in his
own cause is restricted not only to judicial power but is also squarely applicable to decision-making process in other spheres.
Similar view has also been taken in J.Mahapatra & Co. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 1572Â : (1984) 4 SCC 103, where the apex Court observed that a
person who had written a book which was submitted for selection, either by himself or by his publisher, being interested in the matter of selection,
should not be a member of the Selection Committee or Sub-Committee.
17. In Sanjukta Badamali v. Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Boudh & Others 2019 (Supp.I) OLR 1040 this Court has already came to a conclusion that the
selection of Anganwadi worker in respect of Bounsuni-III Anganwadi Centre pursuant to guideline issued by the Government, cannot sustain as she
does not belong to Angnawadi Centre area for the selection was conducted. The ratio decided in the above case, is squarely applicable to the present
context, in view of the documents available on record.
18. Applying the above mentioned principles to the present context and keeping in view the fact that the comparative statement prepared by the
CDPO, Gaisilat, which formed the basis for engagement of opposite party no.5, was signed by a committee constituted by Sub-Collector, BDO,
Medical Officer, SEO I/c. and CDPO, of whom the Medical Officer and SEO I/c. were party to the enquiry report submitted pursuant to direction
given by the B.D.O. and opined against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that such comparative statement cannot be accepted.
19. In view of the legal and factual matrix, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the selection of opposite party no.5 as
Angnawadi Worker in respect of Buromunda Angnawadi Center No.5, pursuant to comparative statement prepared in Annexure-5, and consequential
engagement order dated 27.07.2010 issued in favour of opposite party no.5 vide Annexure-6 cannot sustain in the eye of law. As a result, the order
dated 27.12.2012 passed by the ADM, Bargarh in AWW Appeal No.16 of 2011 in Annexure-7, being and outcome of non-application of mind, also
cannot sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, both Annexures-6 and Annexure-7 are liable to quashed and are hereby quashed.
20. The writ petition is allowed. No order to costs.
