JUDGMENT
B.P. Das, J.
1. Heard Shri B. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri S. K. Swain, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order dated 15.10.2001 passed by the Collector, Puri, cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Haridaspur Anganwadi Centre and directing for commencement of process of selection of Anganwadi Worker de novo in respect of the said center.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is an Intermediate in Arts and has undergone C.T. training course. Pursuant to the advertisement, Annexure-2, she submitted her application for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker and after having secured highest mark in the interview conducted, she was duly selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Haridaspur Anganwadi Centre under Kakatpur Block. Pursuant to the appointment letter, Annexure-3, the petitioner joined as such in Haridaspur Anganwadi Centre on 7.2.2001 and while continuing as such, the Collector by the impugned order in Annexure-4 cancelled her selection and appointment. It is alleged by the petitioner that one Smt. Sabita Kumari Nayak, who was also a candidate for the aforesaid post, challenged the selection and appointment of the present petitioner in this Court in O.J.C. No. 2481 of 2001 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage on 4.4.2001 with a direction that if aforesaid Sabita Kumari Nayak would make a representation within one week to the Collector, the latter should cause an enquiry and dispose of the said representation with a reasoned order. The appointment of the present petitioner, who was arrayed as O.P. No. 6 in that writ petition, was directed to be subject to the result of the enquiry to be made by the Collector. In pursuance of the order passed in the aforesaid O.J.C. No. 2481 of 2001, the Collector has passed the order in Annexure-4, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
The aforesaid order reveals that the Collector on going through the individual mark-sheets and the combined mark-sheet found that Sabita Kumari Nayak had secured 50.14 marks for the result of the H.S.C. Examination, 3 marks for marital status and 5.25 marks in the interview, making a total of 58.39 marks, and Sudhansubala Debi, the present petitioner, had secured 46.71 marks for H.S.C. Examination, 3 marks for I.A. examination, 3 marks for marital status and 7.25 marks in the interview, making a total of 59.96 marks. On further perusal of the average mark card prepared for calculation of the marks awarded in the interview, the Collector found that the Sub-Collector, B.D.O., Medical Officer and the C.D.P.O., who constituted the interview board, had awarded respectively 9 marks, 5 marks, 2 marks and 5 marks to Sabita Kumari Nayak and 3 marks, 8 marks, 9 marks and 9 marks to Sudhansubala Debi, i.e., the present petitioner. But as the Collector found that in the said mark card, one slip has been pasted on the original result sheet indicating marks awarded by the Medical Officer and the C.D.P.O. and the same created suspicion in his mind, he concluded that there was irregularity in the arrangement of the marks awarded in the viva voce test. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the present petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Haridaspur Anganwadi Centre was cancelled and direction was given to commence the process of selection of Anganwadi Worker de novo in respect of the said center.
4. In order to satisfy myself about the alleged irregularity committed at the interview, I directed the learned Addl. Standing Counsel to produce the relevant record and accordingly the said record relating to selection of Anganwadi Workers under Kakatpur Block is produced before me. On perusal of the same, I find that in respect of Haridaspur Anganwadi Centre, a slip has been pasted against the names of the petitioner and Sabita Kumari Nayak showing the marks awarded by the M.O., C.D.P.O., the total and average marks. In the said slip the average mark shown against Sabita Kumari Nayak is 5.25 and that of the petitioner is 7.25. The four members constituting the interview board, i.e., the Sub-Collector, B.D.O., M.O. and C.D.P.O., have respectively awarded 9, 5, 2 and 5, totaling 21 marks to Sabita Kumari Nayak and 3, 8, 9 and 9, totaling 29 marks to Sudhansubala Debi. The individual marks awarded by the different officers, who were members of the selection committee perfectly tally with the slip which has been pasted on the tabulation-sheet. No manipulation or over-writing is found in any of the individual mark-sheets prepared by the aforesaid members of the selection committee in respect of the candidates in question. The reason for pasting the slip is unknown but from the order of the Collector, I find that he has not taken into consideration the individual marks awarded by the different members of the selection committee separately while reaching at the conclusion as arrived at by him. The marks awarded by the individual members of the selection committee fully tally with the slip so superimposed on the tabulation-sheet against the names of the petitioner and Sabita Kumari Nayak. The order of the Collector in Annexure-4 is, therefore, set aside and the Collector is directed to examine the matter afresh keeping in view the marks awarded to the petitioner as well as Sabita Kumari Nayak by the individual members of the selection committee and take a decision on the same. Let this exercise be completed within two months of the date of receipt of this order.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to cost.
The order be communicated to the opposite parties by regd. post with A.D. requisites for which shall be filed within seven days hence.