High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 09 OHC CK 0003

Ranjita Rout vs State of Orissa

Orissa High Court · Decided on 7 September 2015 · Citation: (2016) 121 CutLT 445

HON’BLE JUDGES
Biswanath Rath, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.A. No. 195 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 340 words

Biswanath Rath, J. - By filing the writ appeal, the appellant has sought to challenge the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17015 of 2010. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority in relation to the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker in Sanasorol Anganwadi Centre of Tirtol Block vide Miscellaneous Appeal No. 22 of 2010 case of the appellant has been rejected by both the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge on the premises that case of the appellant, namely, Ranjita Rout, Daughter of Maguni Charan Rout could not have been considered for the aforesaid post as the High School Certificate Examination issued by competent authority clearly mentioned the name of the applicant there in as ''Ranjita Nayak, Daughter of Nirmala Nayak'' and pendency of a suit for correction of applicant''s title as her father name in the Matriculation Certificate could not have been even facilitated her consideration.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. There is no denial to the fact that name of the candidate appeared in the High School Certificate Examination is Ranjita Nayak, Daughter of Nirmal Nayak and the candidate applied for the post was Ranjita Rout, Daughter of Maguni Charan Rout. The learned counsel fairly submits that the confusion has arisen for the reason of adoption of the appellant by Maguni Charan Rout and for their not taking timely step for correction of School record and an attempt for correction of the certificate by way of suit is still pending. this Court observe that in view of the disclosure in the Matriculation Certificate, an important piece of document for such consideration, the Original Authority, erred in taking a decision to select her in spite of such apparent confusion.

3.

This Court does not find any illegality eighter in the order passed by the Appellate Authority or by the learned Single Judge of this Court and as such dismiss the writ appeal for its having no merit.