Pin-781313 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 5681 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Pin-781313 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 8 August, 2024

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010237692022




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

                              Case No. : WP(C)/6617/2021

            SAHIDA KHATUN
            W/O MIZANUR RAHMAN
            R/O VILL- MAJGAON
            WARD NO. 4

            P.O. MAJGAON
             P.S. BARPETA
            DIST. BARPETA
            ASSAM

            PIN-781313


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

            SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
            DISPUR
            GUWAHATI-6
            ASSAM

            2:THE DIRECTOR

            SOCIAL WELFARE
            ASSAM
            UZAN BAZAR
            GUWAHATI-1 ASSAM

            3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

            DIST. BARPETA
            ASSAM
 Page No.# 2/8


            4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER

            BHAWANIPUR ICDS PROJECT (HOWLY)
            DIST. BARPETA
            ASSAM
            ------------

Advocate for : MR G BAISHYA Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

Judgment & Order (Oral)

Date : 08.08.2024

Heard Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner, in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an advertisement dated 17.11.2021, issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Bhawanipur ICDS project, inviting applications from Anganwadi Helpers for promotion/up-gradation against the vacant posts of Anganwadi Worker, including the posts of 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre.

3. The petitioner, herein, has contended that she was engaged for rendering voluntary service as Aganwadi Worker initially for a period of 3(three) months against the 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre under Bhawanipur ICDS project. The petitioner contends that her family had donated a plot of land for setting up 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre. The tenure of the initial engagement of the petitioner having come to end, the petitioner contends that in absence of any person to manage the works of the said Aganwadi Centre, she continued to discharge her duties. Thereafter, the jurisdictional CDPO, vide Page No.# 3/8

communication dated 30.01.2017, re-engaged the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker against the said Anganwadi Centre for a further period of 3(three) months. The petitioner had approached the authorities for consideration of her case for engagement against the said post of Anganwadi Worker on a regular basis, however, the respondent authorities had proceeded to issue an advertisement dated 17.11.2021, inviting applications from Anganwadi Helpers for filling up of various posts of Anganwadi Worker, lying vacant under the said ICDS project; including the post of Anganwadi Worker as existing in the said Anganwadi Centre.

4. The respondent authorities having decided to fill up the vacant posts of Anganwadi Worker, existing in the said Anganwadi Centre, by way of promotion/up-gradation from amongst Anganwadi Helpers and issuing the advertisement dated 17.11.2021 in this connection, and the same having deprived the petitioner from having her case considered for recruitment against the said vacant post of Anganwadi Worker by way of direct recruitment, the present proceedings has been initiated by the petitioner assailing the said advertisement, specifically, pertaining to the posts of Anganwadi Worker existing in the 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre.

5. Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, lying vacant on the death of the incumbent therein, the petitioner being so eligible for being so engaged against the said post, her case was recommended for such engagement and accordingly, vide a communication dated 27.02.2015; the CDPO, Bhawanipur ICDS project, proceeded to engage the petitioner to render voluntary service against the post of Anganwadi Worker in 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre for a period of three months. It is further contended by Mr. Baishya, that the authorities had requested the family of the petitioner for donation of a plot of Page No.# 4/8

land for construction of the building of the Anganwadi Centre with the further assurance that if such donation is made, the petitioner would be continued to be engaged as an Anganwadi Worker in the said centre. Accordingly, a plot of land measuring one Katha came to be so donated and the said centre was so set up therein.

6. On completion of the initial tenure of the engagement of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker, the Managing Committee of the said Anganwadi Centre adopted a resolution on 01.08.2015 to allow the petitioner to continue her services and the said resolution was placed before the concerned authorities for issuance of appropriate order(s).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Anganwadi Helper engaged in the said Centre remained absent since May, 2015 and accordingly; she was required to shoulder the entire burden of operation of the activities of the said centre. The petitioner was thereafter, re-engaged vide a communication dated 30.01.2017 again for a tenure of 3(three) months. The CDPO, Bhawanipur ICDS project thereafter, vide a communication dated 05.02.2019, requested the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre.

8. Mr. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the process for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, for engagement as an Anganwadi Worker on regular basis, in the said Anganwadi Centre was under

consideration by the Director, Social Welfare Department, the authorities of the Bhawanipur ICDS project, proceeded to issue the advertisement dated 17.11.2021 and therein, mandated filling up of the vacant posts of Anganwadi Worker put up for recruitment, including the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker as existing in 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre, by way promotion/up-

gradation of Anganwadi Helpers and thereby, depriving the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 5/8

even from having her case considered for engagement against the said post of Anganwadi Worker by way of direct recruitment.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner having been so engaged for discharging the works attached to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, her case for regularization, even if not permissible, she could not have been deprived of an opportunity to have her case considered for engagement against the said post of Anganwadi Worker, existing in the said Anganwadi Centre by way of direct recruitment. Mr. Baishya, has further submitted that in the event the recruitment process, as initiated vide the advertisement dated 17.11.2021 is permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion, the rights of the petitioner, herein, to have her case considered against the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, would be foreclosed and thereby, violating her rights in this connection. Accordingly, Mr. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement dated 17.11.2021, in so far as it concerns, the recruitment against the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, requires to be so interfered with.

10. Per Contra, Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the advertisement dated 17.11.2021, was so issued in terms of a notification dated 04.03.2013, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Dispur, laying down the guidelines for recruitment to the posts of Anganwadi Worker from amongst serving Anganwadi Helpers, fulfilling the criterias so mandated therein. Mr. Nath, has further contended that the post of Anganwadi Worker is to be filled up both by way of direct recruitment, as well as by way of promotion/up-gradation from amongst serving Anganwadi Helpers, who have fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criterias. Page No.# 6/8

11. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate has further submitted that the ratio to be maintained between the direct recruitment and promotion/up- gradation in the post of Anganwadi Worker is so maintained ICDS project wise, in the ratio of "75%:25%" i.e. 75% of the post is filled up by way of direct recruitment while 25% of the post is so filled up by way of promotion/up- gradation from the Anganwadi Helpers. Mr. Nath, has further submitted that the posts of Anganwadi Workers put up for recruitment vide the advertisement dated 17.11.2021, by way of promotion from amongst Anganwadi Helpers, falls within the quota so mandated for Anganwadi Helpers within the Bhawanipur ICDS project and accordingly, the notification dated 04.03.2013, not being under challenge in the present proceedings, the petitioner cannot maintain a challenge to the advertisement dated 17.11.2021 and accordingly, he submits that the writ petition is required to be so dismissed.

12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record.

13. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner, herein, by way of instituting WP(C)/332/2020 had approached this Court, inter alia, also assailing an advertisement dated 24.12.2019, issued by the CDPO, Bhawanipur ICDS project, Haoli, for filling up of the posts of Anganwadi Worker at 149 No. Majgaon, Dakshin-5 Anganwadi Centre from amongst Anganwadi Helpers. In the said writ petition, the petitioner, therein, has contended that she having been also discharging the duties attached to the post of Anganwadi Helper in the said Centre, her case for such recruitment is also required to be so considered.

14. This Court, on examination of the materials coming on record and after considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsels to the proceedings, proceeded vide order dated 22.01.2020, to dispose of the said writ petition, holding that the petitioner not having completed a term of 10 years of Page No.# 7/8

continuous service as an Anganwadi Helper, she cannot present a claim for being considered for promotion/up-gradation against the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre. Further, it was also noted that the petitioner was, after completion of her engagement for a period of 90 days w.e.f. 30.01.2017; she was no longer in service. Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be devoid of merit and consequently, dismissed.

15. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has projected a case that the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, could not have been so reserved for being so filled up, solely, from the eligible Anganwadi Helpers. The said contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, in terms of the notification dated 04.03.2013, the post of Anganwadi Worker, being also now mandated to be so filled up from amongst Anganwadi Helpers, fulfilling the eligibility criterias prescribed therein, with further stipulation that the feeder post for promotion/up-gradation to the post of Anganwadi Worker would be limited to the post of Anganwadi Helpers serving in various Anganwadi Centres within the revenue village, wherein, the vacancy of post of Anganwadi Worker had so arisen.

16. In view of the above position and in absence of a challenge to the notification dated 04.03.2013; and also in absence of any materials to demonstrate that the post in question was so put up for recruitment by way of promotion/up-gradation from amongst the Anganwadi Helpers, to be beyond the quota as earmarked in each ICDS project for such Anganwadi Centres, this Court, would not interfere with the advertisement dated 17.11.2021.

17. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, herein, the challenge as presented by the petitioner in the present proceeding to the advertisement dated 17.11.2021, stands rejected. Consequently, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Page No.# 8/8

However, there would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant