Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs Bobby Deka And 16 Ors on 18 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010227662023
2025:GAU-AS:1702-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/398/2023
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOV.T OF ASSAM,
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-
781006.
2: THE DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
UZAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781001
VERSUS
BOBBY DEKA AND 16 ORS.
W/O SANJAY TALUKDAR, R/O VILL- NANARA UNDER P.O.- KARARA, DIST.
OF KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN- 781381.
2:MS. RINA PAUL
W/O PRANAB KUMAR DAS
R/O WARD NO. 3
HOSPITAL ROAD RANGIA
DIST.- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN- 781354.
3:MS. KENIJA FATEMA SARKAR
W/O SHAHIB ULLAH
R/O VILLAGE PANBARI
P.O.- SHALKATIPATHER
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM PIN- 782126.
4:MS. MIRA BEGUM
W/O SAMSUL HAQUE
R/O
Page No.# 2/14
VILLAGE- MARANJANA UNDER P.O.- MARANJANA
DIST.- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM
PIN- 781354.
5:MS RANJU DEVI
W/O TAPAN CHANDRA SHARMA
R/O
VILLAGE- BHALUKI UNDER P.O.- BHALUKI
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM PIN- 781371.
6:MS. BIBHA SALOI
W/O RANJIT DAS
R/O
VILLAGE- MEDHIPARAUNDER P.O.- JAROBARI
DIST.- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN- 781122.
7:MS. ASMINA KHATUN
W/O FAKRUL ISLAM
R/O
VILLAGE- LAHARIPAM
P.O.- GORAIMARI
DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782104.
8:MS. BIJULI KALITA
D/O DEBESWAR KALITA
R/O
VILLAGE- PURAN KATAHI
P.O.- CHAYGAON
DIST.- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM
PIN- 781124.
9:MS. PARUL HAJONG
W/O PRANAB DAS
R/O
VILLAGE- SIMLITOLA UNDER P.O.0- SIMLITOLA
DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783130.
10:MS. KHIRADA DEKA
W/O MONESWAR DAIMARI
R/O
VILLAGE- TENGAJHAR
Page No.# 3/14
P.O.- TENGAJHAR
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781364.
11:MS. MACHINA KHATUN
W/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE
R/O
VILLAGE- KHOLABANDHA
P.O.- KHOLABANDHA
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781127.
12:MS. HAMIDA BEGUM
W/O DIN ISLAM
R/O
VILLAGE- JOGIPARA
P.O.- BALABARI
DIST.- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784146.
13:MS. RANJU SAUD
W/O JAYDEV SAUD
R/O
VILLAGE- BUDHUCHAR
P.O.- DALGUMA
DIST.- DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783125.
14:MS. ANISHA BEGUM
W/O MANJUR RAHMAN
R/O
VILLAGE- NO. 1
PUTHIMARI
P.O.- MANGALDAI
DIST.- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 784125.
15:MS. MINA DEKA
D/O JINA RAM DEKA
R/O
VILLAGE- MAHARIPARA
P.O.- MAHARIPARA
DIST.- BAKSA
Page No.# 4/14
ASSAM
PIN- 781364.
16:MS. DEEPA DEVI
D/O DIGABAHADUR PARAJULI
R/O
VILLAGE- NO. 1 BORDIKRAI
P.O.-RANGACHAKUWA
DIST.- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784185.
17:MS. MINA ARA BEGUM
W/O TAZIRUDDIN AHMED
R/O
VILLAGE- DAMPUR
P.O.- DAMPUR
DIST.- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN- 781102
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D NATH,
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R DUTTA (r-1,3 to 6,8 to 11,13,15,17), MR P J DUTTA (r-
2,7,12,16),MR B P BORAH (r-2,7,12,16)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 11.02.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 18.02.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(N. Unni K Nair J.)
Heard Mr. Dilip Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam,
assisted by Ms. D. Devi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel,
appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 &
17; and Mr. P. J. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 2, 7, 12 & 16.
Page No.# 5/14
2. The appellants, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court
appeal, have presented a challenge to a judgment & order, dated
20.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)7215/2018.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the
present proceeding, is noticed as under:
The Government of India, vide a communication, dated 28.04.1995,
had stipulated that 25% of the post figuring in the cadre of Supervisor
would be so filled-up from amongst the Anganwadi Workers, who are
matriculates and have an experience of 10 years of service as an
Anganwadi Worker. In terms of the said stipulation, State Governments
were required to amend the Recruitment Rules for Supervisors and make
therein, provisions for recruitment of Anganwadi Workers to the post of
Supervisor.
In terms of the above stipulation made by the Government of India,
vide communication, dated 28.04.1995; the Government of Assam in the
Social Welfare Department, vide Notification, dated 04.06.2012, notified
the norms and guidelines for selection of candidates for recruitment of in-
service Anganwadi Workers against 25% of the post so figuring in the cadre
of Supervisor.
The recruitment process pursuant to the said Notification, dated
04.06.2012, although initiated having not been taken to its logical
conclusion; the Asom Rajyik Anganwadi Karmi Aru Sahayika Santha,
approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being
Page No.# 6/14
WP(c)4862/2015, praying that the process of recruitment of in-service
Anganwadi Workers against the post of Supervisor be taken to its logical
conclusion.
The writ Court vide order, dated 26.11.2015, noticing the submissions
made by the learned standing counsel, Social Welfare Department,
Government of Assam, that the process of recruitment against the post of
Supervisor from amongst the in-service Anganwadi Workers, to the extent
of the quota so mandated for them; would be completed by 31st of
December, 2015, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition directing
the Director, Social Welfare Department, to complete the process for
recruitment for filling-up of the posts of Supervisor from amongst in-
service Anganwadi Workers, to the extent of the quota so reserved for
them on or before 31st of December, 2015. The respondent authorities,
thereafter, proceeded with the recruitment process and on conclusion
thereof, a select list of 277 nos. of Anganwadi Workers so selected for
recruitment against the post of Supervisor, came to be published.
Basing on the said select list; the respondent authorities proceeded to
engage the selected Anganwadi Workers including the respondents, herein,
as Supervisors. However, such engagement was made on contractual basis
initially for a period of 3 years.
The respondents, herein, being aggrieved by the action of the
appellants, herein, in not appointing them, in terms of their selection,
against the post of Supervisor on substantive basis, had approached the
writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)7215/2018.
Page No.# 7/14
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Principal Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Government of Assam,
vide communication, dated 10.08.2021, conveyed the approval of the
Government for promotion of 277 nos. of Anganwadi Workers as
Supervisors and for authorizing to them, a regular scale of pay.
Accordingly, the respondents, herein, were authorized a scale of pay with
effect from the year 2021.
The learned Single Judge upon considering the issues so arising in the
said proceeding, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022, to
dispose of the said writ petition, directing the respondent authorities to
grant to the petitioners, therein, the benefits of a regular appointee with
retrospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of their initial engagement
as Anganwadi Workers i.e. w.e.f. 06.02.2016 and to release to the
petitioners, therein, the arrears of pay and allowances.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellants, herein, have instituted the present
proceeding before this Court.
5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, appearing for
the appellants, has submitted that in terms of a decision arrived at in the
matter by the appellants, herein; the selected Anganwadi Workers were so
engaged on contractual basis with the designation of Supervisor. Such an
arrangement was so made considering the financial constraints so faced by
the Government at the relevant point of time.
6. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has submitted
Page No.# 8/14
that a concurrence having been received from the Finance Department for
appointment of the selected Anganwadi Workers against the post of
Supervisors, the Communication, dated 10.08.2021, came to be issued
conveying the approval of the Government for promotion of 277 nos. of
Anganwadi Workers as Supervisors and also for authorizing to them, a
regular scale of pay. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned
Addl. Advocate General, Assam, that pursuant to the issuance of the said
Communication, dated 10.08.2021, the respondents, herein, were
authorized a regular scale of pay.
7. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has submitted
that the communication, dated 28.04.1995, issued by the Government of
India had not conferred any right upon the Anganwadi Workers to have
their respective cases considered for recruitment against the post of
Supervisors on a substantive basis.
8. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has further
submitted that the respondents, herein, had accepted the engagement so
made in their respective cases on contractual basis vide issuance of the
orders, dated 06.02.2016, and the same was not challenged by them at
any point of time. The learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam, has also
submitted that being aggrieved by the judgment & order, dated
20.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)7215/2018; the
appellants, herein, had instituted before the writ Court, a review petition
being Review Petition No.07/2023. However, the said review petition, on
consideration, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order, dated
07.09.2023, and accordingly, the present writ appeal was so instituted in
Page No.# 9/14
the matter.
9. Per contra, Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 & 17, has submitted that the Government of India,
vide communication, dated 28.04.1995, having stipulated that 25% of the
posts figuring in the cadre of Supervisor would be required to be so filled-
up from the cadre of Anganwadi Workers and the State Governments
having been required to amend its Recruitment Rules by incorporating the
said provision, the Government of Assam, had vide Notification, dated
04.06.2012, in compliance of the said stipulation made by the Government
of India, proceeded to lay down the norms and guidelines for recruitment of
candidates against the 25% of the post figuring in the cadre of Supervisor
from amongst the in-service Anganwadi Workers. Mr. Kataki, learned
counsel, has further submitted that a perusal of the Notification, dated
04.06.2012, would go to reveal that there is no stipulation made therein
that the recruitment of the Anganwadi Workers to the cadre of Supervisor,
would be so made on contractual basis.
10. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel, has submitted that the incumbents so
recruited to the cadre of Supervisor by way of direct recruitment, were
being authorized the prescribed scale of pay of Supervisor. However, it has
been submitted by the learned counsel of the respondents that a
discrimination was meted-out in respect of the Anganwadi Workers who
were so recruited to the post of Supervisor in terms of the norms and
guidelines so notified vide the Notification, dated 04.06.2012, by denying
to them, an appointment on substantive basis.
Page No.# 10/14
11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
also perused the materials available on record.
12. The Government of India vide the communication, dated 28.04.1995,
having mandated that the post figuring in the cadre of Supervisor would
also be required to be so filled-up by recruitment of Anganwadi Workers,
with the prescribed qualification and experience, to the extent of 25% of
the post so figuring in the cadre of Supervisor; the Government of Assam
in the Social Welfare Department, vide Notification, dated 04.06.2012,
proceeded to notify the norms and guidelines for selection of candidates
from amongst the in-service Anganwadi Workers for recruitment to the post
figuring in the cadre of Supervisor.
13. The quota as mandated for in-service Anganwadi Workers for
recruitment to the post of Supervisor was prescribed as 25% of the posts
so figuring in the cadre of Supervisor. A perusal of the communication,
dated 28.04.1995, as well as the Notification, dated 04.06.2012, would go
to reveal that the recruitment to the cadre of Supervisor as mandated from
amongst the in-service Anganwadi Workers, is so mandated to be effected
in respect of sanctioned posts in the cadre of Supervisor. In other words,
the said communication, dated 28.04.1995, as well as the Notification,
dated 04.06.2012, culls out a quota for the in-service Anganwadi Workers
for recruitment to the post of Supervisor out of the already created posts of
Supervisor which hitherto before, were being so filled up by way of direct
recruitment.
14. The grievance of the respondents, herein, before the learned Single
Page No.# 11/14
Judge was to the effect that in terms of the Notification, dated 04.06.2012,
on their selection for being appointed as Supervisors; they were so
engaged vide the order, dated 06.02.2016, on contractual basis, with the
designation of Supervisor. The respondents, herein, were not given a
substantive appointment on their selection for appointment against the
post figuring in the cadre of Supervisor in terms of the Notification, dated
04.06.2012.
15. As noticed hereinabove; the posts now ear-marked for being utilized
in the cadre of Supervisor for the purpose of appointment thereto, of in-
service Anganwadi Workers, were posts already created and existing. The
incumbents appointed to the cadre of Supervisor by way of direct
recruitment to the extent of 75% of the post so figuring in the cadre of
Supervisor, on their such appointment, were being authorized a scale of
pay. In other words, they were granted substantive appointment on their
selection for the purpose. However, on the selection of the respondents,
herein, and other Anganwadi Workers for appointment to the post of
Supervisor; they were denied an appointment on substantive basis and
were so engaged on contractual basis with a fixed pay. Accordingly, a
discrimination against the in-service Anganwadi Workers, on their selection
for appointment against the posts of Supervisor, is apparent on the face of
the records of the matter.
16. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022,
on considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsels with
regard to the manner in which the in-service Anganwadi Workers, including
the respondents, herein, were so engaged; had drawn the following
Page No.# 12/14
conclusions:
"15. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered
and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. The issue
which calls for a determination is whether the initial promotion of the petitioners to
the post of Supervisors could have been made on a fixed pay and tenure and as to
whether such promotion could have been treated as mere engagements. As a corollary,
it is also to be decided that if the principal issue is held in favour of the petitioners,
from which date the petitioners are to be held to be entitled to the benefits of a
regular Supervisor.
16. To decide the aforesaid issue, it would be necessary to go back to the basis of
filing the present case which is the communication dated 28.04.1995 of the
Government of India. By the said communication, while the Government was
considering increase in the honorarium and other benefits of Anganwadi Workers, a
decision was already taken to reserve minimum 25 % posts of Supervisors for
selection from Anganwadi Workers who are Matriculates and having minimum 10
years of experience. Even assuming for arguments sake that the contents of the said
communication is not a guideline as tried to be projected on behalf of the State, the
subsequent notification by the State dated 04.06.2012 would be of vital importance as
it is by this notification that 25 % reserve quota was introduced. While doing so, the
State Government did not even indicate that the mode of recruitment to the posts of
Supervisors would have any cascading effect on the service conditions of the
promotional posts of Supervisors. Further, what is more intriguing is that the
notification was not given effect to for which the Association of Anganwadi Workers
had to approach this Court by means of a writ petition being WP(C)/4862/2015 and it
was only thereafter when the recruitment process was initiated. Though the case of
Seimens (supra) was cited, the same may not have any direct relevance as by the
subsequent order dated 16.08.2021 passed during the pendency of the present writ
petition is not to the prejudice of the petitioners but is only a measure to redress their
grievance, though partially.
17. It transpires that the recruitment process was initiated vide the communication
dated 01.10.2015 wherein, the petitioners were amongst the successful Anganwadi
Workers who were selected for promotion to the post of Supervisors. After going
through the selection process and being promoted to the post of Supervisors, there
was no reason as to how the petitioners could be deprived of substantive appointment
and rather were given contractual appointment, that too for a fixed period and pay.
There is no doubt that the cadre of Supervisor is one and the same and therefore,
whether one is appointed directly in the 75 % of the vacancies or promoted after
selection from Anganwadi Worker in the reserved 25 % quota cannot make any
difference in their service conditions as Supervisors. Rather, this Court is of the
opinion that the cadre of Supervisor is a homogeneous one where the mode of entry
into the said cadre would be wholly irrelevant. On a specific query by this Court, it
has been clarified that there is no difference in the duties discharged by a directly
recruited Supervisor or one who is promoted from Anganwadi Worker. Further, the
recruitment process for Supervisors which was initiated by the communication dated
01.10.2015 was only to fill up 25 % quota reserved for Anganwadi Workers and not
for some other posts belonging to a different cadre. The learned State Counsel has
also clarified that as on August, 2021, there were 924 nos. of Supervisors out of
which 647 were directly recruited and in the year 2016, 277 nos. were promoted from
the rank of Anganwadi Workers."
Page No.# 13/14
17. With regard to the contentions so raised by the appellants, herein,
that on account of the delay so occasioning in receipt of financial
concurrence from the Finance Department for authorizing to the recruited
Anganwadi Workers, a scale of pay could not be so authorized to them; the
learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022, on
consideration of the said issue, had drawn the following conclusions:
"18. Though a frail argument was advanced on behalf of the State with regard to
financial concurrence, this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be a ground
to deprive the legal entitlement of an incumbent who is inducted into the services by
following the due process of law. Rather, it is the bounden duty of the Department to
obtain prior approval from all the concerned Departments including the Finance
Department before starting the recruitment process and such approval is assumed to
have been obtained. Further, in the instant case, though the initial communication of
the Government of India was of the year 1995, the Rules were amended only in the
year 2012 and the recruitment process initiated in October, 2015 that too, after filing
of a writ petition by the Association"
18. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, basing on the conclusions so
drawn by him in the matter, had issued the following directions:
"19. As would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition that finally vide orders dated
16.08.2021 (or of nearby dates) the petitioners have been given the benefit of a regular
appointment, this Court is of the opinion that such benefits are to be given
retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made on 06.02.2016.
Such retrospective effect would also include the balance of the monthly salaries
which is to be calculated in terms of scale which the petitioners would have been
otherwise paid and the arrears be released to them accordingly. All other benefits
including fitment in the appropriate scale of pay, seniority etc. are also directed to be
given to the petitioners. The aforesaid direction is given in view of the fact that there
is no dispute with regard to the nature of the service discharged by the petitioners as
Supervisors and are part of the same cadre of Supervisors which also includes regular
appointee in the rest 75 % of the vacancies.
20. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. The directions contained in the
preceding paragraphs are to be complied with within a period of 60 days from today."
19. As noticed hereinabove, although a review petition was so filed in the
matter by the appellants, herein, the same, on consideration, was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order, dated 07.09.2023. A
perusal of the conclusions so drawn by the learned Single Judge, would go
Page No.# 14/14
to reveal that the learned Single Judge had considered all the relevant
aspects so arising in the matter and had, thereafter, drawn the conclusions
as extracted hereinabove.
20. On a consideration of the conclusions so arrived at in the matter by
the learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022, in
WP(c)7215/2018, as well as the directions passed therein, basing on such
conclusions; we are not persuaded to take a contrary view, in-as-much as,
the conclusions so drawn by the learned Single Judge, vide the judgment &
order, dated 20.06.2022, are well-reasoned and supported by the materials
on record.
21. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
the judgment & order, dated 20.06.2022, passed by the learned Single
Judge, in WP(c)7215/2018, would not mandate any interference and
accordingly, the instant writ appeal is held to be bereft of any merit and
consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
