Gauhati High Court
Fatema Khatun vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors. B on 26 October, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010153612022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./141/2022
FATEMA KHATUN
W/O- AUWAL SHEIKH, R/O- VILL.- FALIMARI PT-II, P.O. FALIMARI, DIST.
DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783325.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. B
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DIRECTOR
SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM
UZAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI-1
ASSAM
3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783301.
4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER
GAURIPUR ICDS PROJECT
DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN- 783331
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 26-10-2022
Heard Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as
Mr. JK Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents.
2. The review petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was an Anganwadi
Helper in Falimari Part-II Anganwadi Centre wanted to apply for participating in
the selection process for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the
Falimari Part-II Anganwadi Centre pursuant to the advertisement dated
15.02.2019. The petitioner being overage, thereafter filed an application to the
respondents to relax her upper age limit to enable her to participate in the
selection process. However, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the
respondents.
3. The petitioner along with another person thereafter filed WP(C) No.
6327/2019, making a challenge to the order dated 12.06.2019 passed By the
Director, Social Welfare, Assam, by which the petitioner's prayer for relaxation of
the upper age limit has been rejected. They had also made a challenge to
Clause-6 of the guidelines provided in the notification dated 04.03.2014, which
was the procedure made by the Government of Assam, for promotion of
Anganwadi Helpers to the post of Anganwadi Workers. Clause-6 of the
guidelines provided in the notification dated 04.03.2014, required an Anganwadi
Helper to be not be above 45 years of age at the time of consideration for
promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker.
4. WP(C) No. 6327/2019 was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2022 on the
basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of
Page No.# 3/4
Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614. This Court held that fixing
the cut off age at 45 was not arbitrary.
5. The review petitioner has now come to this Court with new facts, which
is basically to the effect that one Menoka Adhikary, who was an Anganwadi
Helper, was allowed to participate in the selection process for promotion to the
post of Anganwadi Worker in 76 No. Daobhangi Anganwadi Centre.
6. The review petitioner's counsel submits that while the State respondents
had taken a stand in WP(C) No. 6327/2019 that no person above 45 years could
be considered for promotion from Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker, the
petitioner has now come to learn that the said Menoka Adhikary had been
allowed to participate in the promotion process though she was 51 years of age,
at the time the selection process took place. He accordingly submits that the
review petitioner should also have been allowed to participate in the selection
process, though she was above 45 years of age at the relevant point of time.
7. Mr. JK Goswami, learned counsel for all the respondents submits that no
stand has been taken by the review petitioner that the impugned order dated
01.04.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 6327/2019 suffers from any error apparent on
the face of the record or that there was any infirmity with the said impugned
order. He accordingly prays that the review petition should be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. The prayer of the review petitioner in the earlier round of litigation for
relaxing her upper age limit had not been allowed in view of Clause-6 of the
guidelines provided in the notification dated 04.03.2013 made by the State
Government, which required an Anganwadi Helper to be not above 45 years of
age, for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker.
Page No.# 4/4
10. The prayer of the review petitioner, to direct the respondents to consider
her case for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker on the ground that one
Menoka Adhikary has been allowed to participate in the selection process
against the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in 76 No. Daobhangi Anganwadi
Centre cannot be accepted by this Court, as the consideration of the said
Menoka Adhikary in violation of Clause-6 of the guidelines provided in the
notification dated 04.03.2013 by the State respondents cannot help the case of
the petitioner. Any alleged illegality committed by the respondents cannot be
allowed to be perpetrated, as two wrongs cannot make a right. Further, the
review petitioner had applied for the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in
respect of Falimari Part-II Anganwadi Centre, while Menoka Adhikary was
considered for the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker against 76 No. Daobhangi
Anganwadi Centre. It is also the view of this Court that no alleged mistake or
illegality committed by any person can confer any vested right upon any person.
11. Accordingly, this Court finds that no case for review has been made out
in the present petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
