Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam on 12 February, 2026

                                                                 Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010070132025




                                                           2026:GAU-AS:2175

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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/1885/2025

         FORIDA BEGUM
         W/O- RASIDUL HOQUE, VILL- SALBARI PT I, PO GOUR NAGAR, PS
         LAKHIPUR, DIST- GOLAPARA, PIN- 783132



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM
         REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM , DEPTT OF SOCIAL
         WELFARE ETC, DISPUR, GHY- 06

         2:THE DIRECTOR

          SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
          ASSAM
          UZANBAZAR
          GUWAHATI- 781001.

         3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

          GOALPARA
          P.O. AND DIST.- GOALPARA
          ASSAM
          PIN- 783101.

         4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER

          JALESWAR
          ICDS PROJECT
          GAUR NAGAR

         DIST- GOALPARA
         ASSAM
                                                  Page No.# 2/10

PIN- 783130

5:THE SELECTION BOARD
 REP. BY THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER
 JALESWAR ICDS PROJECT
 DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
 PIN-783130

6:RUPSANA KHATUN
W/O- SOFIQUL ISLAM

VILLAGE- BADANG DONGA

P.O-GAUR NAGAR

DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783130

7:SAHIDA BEGUM
W/O- AZIAL HOQUE

ANGANWADI WORKER
BADANG DONGA AWC

P.O-GAUR NAGAR

DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783132

8:SMTI. HELI
 SUPERVISOR
ANGANWADI CENTRES

P.O-GAUR NAGAR

DIST- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN- 783132

9:THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM
 REP. BY THE SECRETARY
 SEBA
 GUWAHATI-21

10:THE PRINCIPAL
                                                                          Page No.# 3/10

             GAUR NAGAR SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL

            P.O- GAUR NAGAR

            DIST- GOALPARA
            ASSAM
            PIN- 78313

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. T BEGUM, MR. A ROSHID

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, A R MONDAL (R-10),MR. S U AHMED(R-10),SC,
SEBA




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                         ORDER

12.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 - 5. Also heard Mr. D. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA, for the respondent No. 9. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 & 10.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Mustt. Forida Begum, has challenged the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, namely, Rupsana Khatun, as Anganwadi Helper for Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General).

3. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.11.2024, the Child Development Project Officer, Lakhipur I.C.D.S. Project, Gour Nagar, Goalpara, had published one advertisement for filling up of vacant posts of Helper at Badang Donga Tiniali (General) Anganwadi Centre, specifying the condition that the candidate should be the resident of the said Anganwadi Centre area, should pass HS/HSLC; if HSLC pass candidate is not available then Page No.# 4/10

Class IX passed, and with some other conditions. Then the petitioner, having passed Class-IX examination, and being resident of the area of Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General), applied for the said post, along with other candidates.

Thereafter, interview was held and the Selection Board had selected the respondent No. 6, who is an outsider and a regular student of Class-XII of Gournagar Senior Secondary School and she was appointed on 27.02.2025, in the said post.

3.1 Mr. Roshid, further submits that the name of the respondent No. 6 was included in the list of Badang Donga Tiniali AWC, in conspiracy with the respondent No. 7, who is also an Anganwadi Worker and is the sister-in-law of the respondent No. 6 and also in conspiracy with the respondent No. 8, the Supervisor of the ICDS Project, Gournagar.

3.2 Mr. Roshid, further pointed out that though, local public filed complain against the respondent No. 6 on 25.11.2024 and 06.01.2025, the same failed to evoke any response; and that the respondent No. 6 had also no Voter ID Card, Aadhaar Card etc. of the village Badang Donga and as such, Mr. Roshid has contended to set aside the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, as the same is illegal and arbitrary and to appoint the petitioner.

3.3. Further submission of Mr. Roshid is that the respondent No. 6 is also a student and pursuing studies in Gournagar Senior Secondary School and on this count also, her selection and appointment is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be interfered with.

4. Per contra, Mr. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 - 5, submits that the respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit-in- Page No.# 5/10

opposition, denying the statements and averments made in the petition. Mr. Chutia also submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 6 in this petition, in as much as, it has been clearly mentioned in the Advertisement, dated 01.11.2024, that the educational qualification for being selected to the post of Anganwadi Helper is HSLC pass and only in the event of absence of HSLC pass candidates, the case of Class-IX pass candidates will be considered; and there were 4 posts of Anganwadi Helper in Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General) and there were 4 candidates having the qualification of HSLC passed and the respondent No. 6 is one of them; and that all of them were selected for being appointed to the said posts and since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed in the said post, as she is only Class-IX pass and a specific stand is taken in the affidavit-in-opposition to that effect by the respondent No. 4 as such, she cannot legally challenge the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6.

4.1 Mr. Chutia, by producing the Survey Register before this Court, submits that the respondent No. 6 is the wife of Sofiqul Islam and both of them reside within the territorial limits of Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General). The said Register was forwarded by the Child Development Project Officer, Lakhipur I.C.D.S. Project, Gour Nagar, Goalpara; wherein, it is clearly stated that the name of respondent No. 6, namely, Rupsana Khatun, wife of Sofiqul Islam, Village-Badongdonga, Post Office-Gournagar, in the district of Goalpara; is enlisted in House No. 49, family Sl. No. 04, in the year 2024-25 and House No. 20, family Sl. No. 03 (respondent's husband), in the year 2023-24.

4.2 Mr. Chutia, by referring to the letter of the Principal, Gournagar Senior Secondary School, dated 04.12.2024, which is annexed with the petition as Page No.# 6/10

'Annexure No. 7'; submits that though, the respondent No. 6 was a student of the said school, yet, as per the said letter, the respondent No. 6 did not fill up the form of H.S. Final Examination, 2025 and she has also not been pursuing studies in the said school at present and under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is devoid of substance and therefore, Mr. Chutia has contended to dismiss this petition.

5. In reply to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit on 19.11.2025, and in view of the Annexure Nos. 10 and 11 of the said additional affidavit, the name of the respondent No. 6 was enlisted in 2022 as member, under the Kolabari Sorakpara AWCMC Jaleswar ICDS Project, Gournagar; and that after issuance of the advertisement, she had shifted her name to Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General) and illegally got her name enlisted in July, 2024; and that selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 is illegal and arbitrary and under such circumstances, Mr. Roshid has contended to allow this petition, by setting aside and quashing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Helper of Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General).

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and also perused the documents placed on record and also perused the Survey Report produced before the Court today by Mr. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 - 5.

7. And this Court finds substance in the submission advanced by Mr. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1-5. A careful Page No.# 7/10

perusal of the Advertisement, dated 01.11.2024, indicates that the same was issued for filling up of 32 Nos. of posts of Anganwadi Helper. The condition at Serial No. 3, in the aforesaid advertisement indicates that the minimum educational qualification for being appointed as Anganwadi Helper is HSLC/AHM/SEBA or equivalent examination from recognized Board by the Government of Assam, and in the event of absence of HSLC pass candidate, Class-IX pass candidate may also apply. Thus, it becomes clear that the minimum educational qualification is HSLC pass.

7.1. On the other hand, the petitioner herein has studied up to Class-IX only, and she would have been qualified in absence of HSLC pass candidate. From the Annexure-5 of the petition, it becomes apparent that there were six candidates, who had applied for Badang Donga Tiniali Anganwadi Centre (General). The name of the petitioner is reflected at serial No. 1 and in the remark column the Selection Committee had noted that the petitioner is under qualified. It also appears that altogether four candidates, including the respondent No. 6, were selected and all of them are HSLC passed. Since HSLC pass candidates are available, the petitioner is not at all qualified for being appointed to the aforementioned post, and since she is not at all qualified for being appointed as Anganwadi Helper, she cannot challenge the selection and appointment of respondent No. 6. This proposition is well settled in a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of different High Courts. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Umakant Saran Vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 485.

7.2. It is also well settled that an ineligible candidate is a stranger to the Page No.# 8/10

selection process and a stranger cannot challenge the selection of an eligible candidate. In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"50. While a Procrustean approach should be avoided, as a rule, the Court should not interfere at the instance of a "stranger" unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a grave miscarriage of justice having an adverse impact on public interests. Assuming that the appellant is a "stranger", and not a busybody, then also there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case which would justify the issue of a writ of certiorari at his instance. On the contrary, the result of the exercise of these discretionary powers, in his favour, will, on balance, be against public policy. It will eliminate healthy competition in this business which is so essential to raise commercial morality; it will tend to perpetuate the appellant's monopoly of cinema business in the town; and above all, it will in effect, seriously injure the fundamental rights of Respondents 1 and 2, which they have under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, to carry on trade or business subject to "reasonable restrictions imposed by law".

8. Further, from the Survey Report, so produced before this Court by Mr. Chutia and the letter, dated 10.10.2025, of the Child Development Project Officer, Lakhipur I.C.D.S. Project, Gour Nagar, Goalpara, indicates that the respondent No. 6, along with her husband; resides in Badongdonga village, Post Office-Gournagar, in the district of Goalpara; and their name is enlisted against House No. 49, family Sl. No. 04, in the year 2024-25; and in House No. 20, family Sl. No. 03 (respondent's husband), in the year 2023-24.

8.1. Though, the petitioner has disputed the address of the respondent No. 6 Page No.# 9/10

and also produced another Survey Report, which is annexed as 'Annexure No. 12'; in her additional affidavit to contend that she got her name enlisted in 02.07.2024 in illegal manner, which is before the advertisement, dated 01.11.2024; yet, the said submission of Mr. Roshid in this regard, has left this Court unimpressed; in as much as, the said advertisement was issued on 01.11.2024 and the survey report produced before the Court by Mr. Chutia indicates that her name appeared in the list in the year 2022-23 and also in 24-

25.

9. This Court is also left unimpressed by the submission of Mr. Roshid that at the time of applying to the said post, the respondent No. 6 was pursuing her studies and as such, she does not fulfill the requirement of the Advertisement, dated 01.11.2024, in as much as, Annexure No. 7, which is enclosed with the petition at page No. 32, and which is a letter of the Principal, Gournagar Senior Secondary School, addressed to the Child Development Project Officer, indicates that though, the respondent No. 6 was pursuing her studies in the said school in Class-XII, she did not fill up the form for the upcoming HS Final Examination, 2025 and she is not presently studying in his school. The said letter of the Principal was issued on 04.12.2024. That being so the contention of Mr. Roshid got no legs to stand upon in view of his own document.

10. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

JUDGE Page No.# 10/10

Comparing Assistant