Kumudini Behera v. A.D.M.,Nayagarh

// 1 //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A No.350 of 2016 Kumudini Behera ....

Appellant Mr. A.K.Mishra-2,Advocate -versusAdditional District Magistrate, Nayagarh-cum-Appellate Authority,Nayagarh and others ....

Respondents Mr. D.K.Mohanty,AGA

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

10.10.2022 02.

1. Admittedly the Appellant was unable to produce the original Order No.

Board certificate before the selection committee for the post of Anganwadi worker (AWW). There was no denial of this fact even before this Court by the learned counsel for the Appellant.

2. However, on the strength of a decision of the Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Gyan Prakash Srivastava (2012) 1 SCC 537 he contends that since the mark sheets were produced that should have been sufficient. He seeks to explain that the Appellant lost the Board certificate and had applied for a duplicate but it was not available by the time of selection committee assembled to consider the application of the Appellant.

// 2 //

3. The selection committee cannot be faulted for not accepting the candidature of the Appellant, if the documents that required to be produced were not in fact produced before it. The decision in Union Public Service Commission v. Gyan Prakash Srivastava (supra) turned on its own facts. Here the guidelines are very clear. No exception is provided for not producing the Board certificate at the time of scrutiny of the documents for the purpose of appointment as AWW. With the consistent legal position having been explained in several decisions of this Court, there can be no dilution of the above mandatory requirement. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the Writ petition filed by the Appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge B.C.Mohanty