ARUNA SURESH, J. W.P.(C) NO. 8277 OF 2010 (Decided on 18.11. 2011) MATANGINI ROUT @ GIRI ………Petitioner .Vrs. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ………Opp.Partie For Petitioner - Mr. D.K.Mohapatra. For Opp.Parties - Mr. S.Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate (for Op.No.1 to 3) Mr. Bhimasen Sahoo (Op. No. 4) Under challenge in this writ is the order of the Sub-Collector, Balasore dated 22.4.2010 whereby he directed the CDPO, Baliapal to take steps for disengagement of the petitioner with further direction to engage Smt. Namitarani Das, if she was found suitable as per the selection list, in Langaleswar-V (Cinema Bazar) Anganwadi Centre within 15 days of the receipt of the order. In brief, case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of an advertisement, she had filed her application for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Langaleswar-V Anganwadi Centre. Petitioner possessed requisite qualification of ‘Prathama’ from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. After the selection process was complete, she was found to be the most eligible candidate and was accordingly issued an engagement order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure-4). Petitioner joined her post on 15.1.2010. Along with her joining report, she had submitted the requisite certificates. She was also allowed to undergo training on pre-integration skill held on 24.3.2010 vide letter dated 20.3.2010. Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in the aforesaid centre, respondent no.4 Smt. Namita Rani Das made a representation to the Sub-Collector alleging that the petitioner’s certificate from Allahabad Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not equivalent to High School certificate examination and, therefore, she did not fulfill the requisite educational qualification for selection and accordingly, her selection was illegal. Respondent no.4, Namita Rani Das’s representation was considered as an appeal by the Sub-Collector and it was registered as SSW Misc. Case No.29 of 2010. He allowed the appeal and ordered disengagement of the petitioner and engagement of respondent no.4, Namita Rani Das. Aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Collector, this petition has been filed. Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide notification dated 21.11.2006 Prathama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was considered and recognition was granted to ‘Prathama’ examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to pass in matriculation for a further period of three years from 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2010 by Government of India, Ministry of Resource Development Department of Higher Education for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the minimum qualification is a pass in matriculation. He has urged that in view of this notification, petitioner had the requisite qualification for consideration of her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker. He has argued that petitioner was rightly found eligible and being most meritorious was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the aforesaid Centre. He has further argued that one Ranjan Kumar Patra and some other candidates having similar qualification as that of the petitioner are pursuing higher studies and they have been given admission by the Universities/Colleges accepting the certificate of Prathma issued by Hindi Sahity Sammelan as equivalent to pass in High School certificate conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. It is also the case of the petitioner that Sub-Collector did not ask the State Government to verify about the qualification acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad if was accepted by State Government not only in the Government matters but also for employment but, has proceeded with the assumption that the certificate of Prathama qualification obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not equivalent to the High School Certificate examination of the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to letter NO.XVIIE (H)-21/29/3218/EYS dated 23.2.1981 to emphasis that the State Government had accepted the examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to any examination like HSC/IA/BTC/CT for the propose of employment. Therefore, according to him, the order of the Sub-Collector being violative of this notification is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. Mr. S. Das, Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents has submitted that Government of Orissa, did not accept ‘Prathama’ qualification of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to High School certificate and therefore, the Sub- Collector was right when he ordered disengagement of the petitioner and engagement of respondent no.4. He has further argued that the copy of the letter dated 23.2.1981 is forged and fabricated document as the original does not exist in the office record and that the letter dated 8.9.1994 was recalled on 21.6.2000. Notification dated 21.11.2006 was published by the Governement of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education whereby provisional recognition granted to the Prathama examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahaband for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in matriculation was extended for a further period of three years from 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2010. Thus, it is clear that this notification granted recognition to the Prathama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to matriculation for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the requisite qualification was a pass in Matriculation. This notification cannot be made applicable in the State of Orissa unless its application is extended by the Government of Orissa to its State, or another notification is issued by the State Government in similar terms. However the government had neither extended the notification dated 21.11.2006 to the State of Orissa nor issued any other notification in similar terms. Petitioner has placed reliance on the letter dated 8.9.1994 to claim her certificate of Prathama issued by Sahitya Sammelana as equivalent to High School certificate for 2 employment, its equivalence having been recognized by the Education Department, Government of Orissa. Perusal of this letter indicate that it was issued in reference to a Government letter no.3218 EYS dated 23.2.1981 regarding recognition of Hindi examination conducted by Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra and Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahbad for employment and general education . As per Clause(B) sub-Claus(i) of this letter Prathama has been considered as equivalent to HSC . However, the existence of the letter no.3218 EYS dated 23.2.1981 allegedly issued by the Government is in dispute. If no such letter was issued by the Government, then letter dated 8.9.1994 cannot be enforced against the respondents. Learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record communication dated 3.8.2011 annexed with another letter dated 21.6.2000 to demonstrate that no such letter dated 23.2.1981 was issued from file No. XVII-E(H)-21/79 and that letter dated 8.9.94 was obtained fraudulently on the basis of fake and forged copy of GO No.3213/EYS dated 23.2.1981. Letter No.IISME-90/2000/17351/dated 21.6.2000 issued by the Department of School & Mass Education, Government of Orissa addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa and Director, Elementary Education, Orissa by G.N. Mohanty, I.A.S, Additional Secretary to Government reads as follows :- “In continuation of this Department letter No.34498 dated 2.11.1995 on the above subject, I am directed to say that (i) this Department has never declared examinations conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to any examinations like H.S.C/I.A/B.T.C/C.T for the purpose of employment. Such claim has been made on the basis of letter no.3118/EYS dt.23.2.81 purported to have been issued from file NO.XVII-E(H)-21/79 However, no such letter has been issued from the said file. The said file has been closed and consigned to records on 7.8.80 and as such there was no scope of issue of any letter from that file in 1981 as claimed. (ii) The alleged Government letter No.XVIIE(H)-21/79/3218/EYS dated 23.2.81 is therefore fake and forged paper and invalid (iii) It appears that letter number 3HT/VI/100-94/36224 dated 8.9.94 of the Deputy Director (Hindi and Sanskrit) and letter No.IVE-HI-20/92/50711 dated 12.11.92 of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Education Department has been obtained fraudulently on the basis of the fake and forged copy of G.O. No.3218/EYS dated 23.2.81 even though no such letter has been actually issued by the Court. (iv) Hence, G.O. NO.3218/EYS dated 23.2.81 allegedly approving the examinations of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to C.T. and other qualifications is a 3 fake and forged paper and subsequent letters of Depurty Director & Deputy Secretary referred in paragraph (iii) above are also not valid, being based on fake letter.” Perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly indicate that letter dated 23.2.81 which is basis of circular/notification no.36224 dated 8.9.94 issued by Director of Secondary Education, Orissa was fraudulently obtained on the basis of fake and forged copy of the letter dated 23.2.1981. As per letter no.38005 dated 3.8.2011 received by Mr. S. Das, Additional Government Advocate, the notification dated 8.9.1994 had been withdrawn vide letter dated 21.6.2000 that no such letter dated 23.2.1981 was issued from file No. XVII-E(H)- 21/79. It reads:- “Inviting a reference to the letter No.35446 dt.2.8.11 of Advocate General, Orissa Cuttack on the subject cited above, I am directed to say that the circular/Notification No.36224 dt.8.9.94 of the D.S.E. (O) is not in force as per G.O. No.17351/SME dt.21.6.2000 communicated to all Inspector of Schools vide memo No.3257 dt.11.7.2000 of Directorate of Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.” Therefore, letter dated 8.9.1994 was not inforce when the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Anganwadi Worker on 8.1.2010 A similar question had arisen in various writ petitions titled as Miss Baijayanti Jena & others Vs. State of Orissa and others (35 cases with different titles)which were clubbed together and were disposed of vide one common order dated 6.5.1997 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. While considering the question of existence of letter dated 23.2.1981 approving equivalency of Sikshya Bisarada of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to BTC/CT of Orissa reliance was placed on the Government letter dated 2.11.1995 wherein it was held that there was no such Government order dated 23.2.1981. The Court concluded that the letter dated 23.2.1981 was forged and fabricated documents with following observations:- “9. We have bestowed our serious and anxious consideration to the submissions of the counsel for the parties. We have perused all the documents referred to by the counsel for the parties. It is now an admitted fact that the original letter no.3281/EYS dated 23.2.1981 (disputed letter) is not forthcoming. In all the cases the petitioners have filed copies of that letter. Neither the office copy of the said letter nor any note is available in the file referred to in the said letter. In one of the copies of the said letter another file number was mentioned. No such file is available in the record of the Secretariat. In the copy of the said letter found from the office of the Director, Employment, there were unusual discrepancies as has been explained by the Deputy Secretary in his affidavit dated 3.5.1997. In the circumstances, doubt expressed by the State Government about the authenticity of the said letter cannot be faulted with. We 4 have not been able to persuade ourselves to believe as to how the State Government would be benefited or it would be put to any advantageous position by disputing issuance of the so-called Government letter NO.3218/ EYS dated 23.2.1981. As it appears to us, the matter was going on in a cavalier way and the scope to unearth origin of the so-called Government letter arose only when the Additional Secretary to the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education attended a meeting at Calcutta where in it was commented that the State Government was not justified in declaring equivalence of the certificate of Sikshya Bisarad of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to that of B.T.C/C.T. of Orissa. After his return, the Additional Secretary got the matter verified with reference to the records and when it was found that no such Government letter was over issued, the impugned letter was issued stating, inter alia, not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikshya Bisarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.” Once it is held that the letter dated 23.2.1981 is a forged document and was not issued by the Government, the letter dated 8.9.1994 obviously was obtained by playing fraud upon the Department on production of fake and forged copy of the letter dated 23.2.1981. Had the said letter been issued, it would have found place in the record of the office. The Sub-Collector had considered the Central Government notificated dated 21.11.2006 and it observed that notification no.143 dated 17.3.2009 of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa did not declare the education qualification of Prathama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to the High School certificate examination. He rightly held that the notification of the Central Government dated 21.11.2006 was meant for employment under the Central Government for which the desired qualification was pass in matriculation. However, no action was taken by the State Government in pursuance of the notification dated 21.11.2006. He also considered the minimum educational qualification required for the post of Anganwadi Worker as matriculation pass in Orissa or any equivalent examination as per the latest Government guidelines communicated vide G.O letter no. 145/SWCD dated 2.5.2007 of W & CD Department, Orissa. Guidelines dated 2.5.2007 did not indicate that Prathama qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was equivalent to High School Certificate examination certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. I find myself agreement with the finding of appellate authority. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of my discussion as above, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Sub-Collector, Balasore passed in SSW Misc. Case No.29 as it is just and proper and needs no interference. Consequently, the petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. 5