Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2011 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010129702008




                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WP(C)/1440/2008

         SMTI BANESSA KHATUN and ORS
         W/O HAZARAT ALI, R/O NO.2 KHARIJAU GAON, P.S. LUMDING, DIST.
         NAGAON, ASSAM.

         2: SMTI MOIMUN NESSA
         W/O NAZIMUDDIN
          FARUKIA CHUBURI VILL- NO.1 SARKEYBASTI
          P.S. LUMDING
          DIST. NAGAON
         ASSAM.

         3: SMTI AFIA KHATUN
         W/O MD EDRISH ALI
          R/O PHULBARI CHUBURI
          P.S. LUMDING
          DIST. NAGAON
         ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL
         WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6.

         2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT

          ASSAM
          UZAN BAZAR
          GHY-1.

         3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

          NAGAON
          DIST. NAGAON
                                                                 Page No.# 2/6

             ASSAM.

            4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

             LANKA REVENUE CIRCLE
             LANKA
             DIST. NAGAON
             ASSAM.

            5:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
             NAGAON

             DIST. NAGAON
             ASSAM.

            6:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER

             LUMDING ICDS PROJECT
             LUMDING
             DIST. NAGAON
             ASSAM.

            7:SMTI ASHMA BEGUM
            W/O ABDUL MATLIB
             R/O CENTRE BAZAR L P SCHOOL
             P.S. LUMDING
             DIST. NAGAON
            ASSAM.

            8:SMTI RIJIA KHATUN
            W/O ABDUL MUTLIB
             R/O NO. 2 DEWANGAON UNDER NOKHUTI GAON PANCHAYAT
             P.S. LUMDING
             DIST. NAGAON
            ASSAM.

            9:SMTI ROSNA BEGUM
            W/O MD ABDUL NOOR
             R/O LANKAJAN CHUBURI
             P.S. LUMDING
             DIST. NAGAON
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.P J SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 3/6




                                     BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
                                     ORDER

31.08.2021

Heard Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 9.

2. The three petitioners herein had applied for being appointed as the Anganwadi Helper pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.09.2007 in respect of 19 No. of Sarkeybasti Farukial Madrassa Anganwadi Centre, 23 No. of Ahmedia Subhahi Muqtab Anganwadi Centre and 14 No. of Fulbari Aganwadi Centre respectively. As per the said advertisement the Anganwadi Helper should be resident within the area of the respective Anganwadi Centre.

3. Referring to Annexure-D(1), D(2) and D(3) of this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Circle Officer report that there are 3(three) petitioners therein resident within the habitation of the Anganwadi centre. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9, who were not the residents within the habitation area of the respective Anganwadi Centre, have been illegally appointed and therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate by referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the respondent no. 6 Page No.# 4/6

had personally verified and found out that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 were inhabitants of the area where the Anganwadi Centres are located. It is submitted that on merit of the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 had scored more marks than the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate had denied that due process was not followed and it is submitted that the petitioners took part in the interview/selection without raising any objection and having failed to get selected had assailed the selection process.

5. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 9 has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition and it is submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has already been engaged as an Anganwadi Helper in an Ali Pralim Para Anganwadi Centre in the year 2009 which is nearer to her residence. Referring to Annexure- D(1), D(2) and D(3) of the writ petition, it is submitted that the said enquiry was made behind the respondent nos. 7 and 9. By referring to the notification No. SWD/64/2007/PT-1/24 dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure-C of the writ petition), it is submitted that in the eligibility criteria at Para-2 (A)(i), it is prescribed that the candidate for the post of Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi Helper shall be local women residing in the same village where the Anganwadi Centre is located. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sabita Begum Vs. State of Assam and Ors., 2018 (1) GLT 816, had decided that the candidate must be resident of revenue village and it was not necessary that the candidate should be limited to a locality where the centre is located in her village. It is submitted that based on the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case Hasnur Begum Vs. State of Assam and Ors. (WP(C) 2957/2015 decided on 14.12.2018), had held that the eligibility of the petitioner on the ground of residence could not be questioned as the Page No.# 5/6

Anganwadi Centre as well as the residence of the petitioners as well as respondents nos. 7 and 9 are in the same revenue village.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 9 has also submitted that the stand taken by the said respondents that they and the petitioners are from the same revenue village has not been disputed and denied by the petitioners and accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner are not entitled to get any relief.

7. On a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6, the contents thereof is found to be very disturbing. The specific stand in paragraph-8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 6 is to the effect that the Circle Officer, Mankar Revenue Circle (respondent no. 4) was all along present in the interview process for selection of Anganwadi Helper and Worker as the Chairman of the Committee. In light of the said position held by the respondent no. 4, as Chairman of the Interview Board for selection of Anganwadi Worker and Helper, the said respondent no. 4 had subsequently issued his reports which is annexed as D(1), D(2) and D(3) in the writ petition, which undermines his credibility. It is also seen that although Annexure-D(1), D(2) are dated 06.07.2007, but they are signed by 14.11.2007, whereas though Annexure-D(3) is dated 12.11.2007, it was signed on 14.11.2007. In the said enquiry report, it does not even makes a fundamental disclosure as to whether the petitioners and the concerned respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 were resident of same revenue village, which is the requirement of the Notification dated 31.08.2007.

8. Having taking note of the para-2 (A) (i) of the notification dated 31.08.2007, the challenge made in the writ petition, on the ground that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 were not residents of the habitation of the Page No.# 6/6

concerned Anganwadi centre appears to be stand which is found to be contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Sabita Begum (supra) which is decided by the Division Bench of this Court and binding of this Court. It is observed that the ratio of the said case was also followed in the case of Hasnur Begum (supra). This writ petition fails on the ground that the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 are respectively residing in the same revenue villages where the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 were then residing. It is clarified that the petitioner no. 1 has assailed the appointment of the respondent no. 8, petitioner no. 2 has assailed the appointment of the respondent no. 7 and petitioner no. 3 has assailed the appointment of respondent no. 9. The stand of respondent nos. 7 and 9 that they are residents of the same village as the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 and the same is not controverted by the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. The parties shall bare their own cost.

10. The Court is inclined to accept and allow the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to correct the para no. 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 7 and 9 to substitute the date of 14.10.2018 to 14.12.2018, which is typographical error.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant