High Court · 2012

The case projected in the writ petition is absolutely different than the one projected by the petitioner before the departmental authority. Bot h the writ petitions being inter connected, have been taken up together for anal ogous hearing. While in W.P.(C) No. 2382/2001 the petitioner has challenged Anne xure-D series communications including show cause notice dated 05.05.2012 by whi ch the petitioner was asked to submit her reply in respect of caste pass certifi cate allegedly submitted by her for taking employment as Anganwadi Worker, in th e second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 2682/2012, she has challenged the orde r dated 23.05.2012 by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the CDPO, Dhemaji ICDS Project.

2. I have heard Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N.B. Choudh ury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri B.K. S arma, learned SC, SWD.

3. In both the writ petitions the case projected by the petitioner is that she is the daughter of one Late Bhaiti Das who belonged to Scheduled Caste (SC) community. After his demise her mother got married with Shri Bhola Borah and ac cordingly she derived both the titles, i.e. Das and Borah. Therefore she is desc ribed as Smt. Manjumoni Borah Das.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that since her actual father belonged to SC community, she also belongs to the said community irrespective of her mot her’s marriage for the second time with Shri Bhola Borah. In paragraph-10 of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2382/2012, the petitioner has referred to the show cause notice dated 05.05.2012 against which she has submitted her reply on 14.05.2012. In the said paragraph, there is no whisper that the show cause reply was obtained by applying any pressure on her. For a ready reference, paragraph- 10 is quoted below: (cid:28)10. That the petitioner begs to state that after receiving the show cause notic e dated 05.05.2012 issued to the petitioner the petitioner had gone through it a nd had prepared a reply by denying all the allegations levelled against her. It is stated by the petition that the documents relying on preparing the allegation s levelled against her in the aforesaid show cause notice dated 05.05.2012 is no t served to her. Therefore it is stated by the petitioner that for that reason t he petitioner could not submitted her effective reply of the aforesaid show caus e notice dated 05.05.12 issued to the petitioner. the petitioner further stated that on 14.05.2012 she had submitted her reply in response of the show cause not ice dated 05.05.2012. The petitioner further states that after submitting the re ply of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 05.05.2012, there is surreptitious move on the part of the respondent authorities tried to remove the petitioner fr om her service on the basis of enquiry which was done behind the back of the pet itioner which is highly illegal, arbitrary, unauthorised, unjust, unreasonable, whimsical and violation of natural justice. (cid:29)

5. Unlike the aforesaid stand in the first writ petition, in the second wri t petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 2628/2012, the petitioner has stated that she could not submit the affidavit in reply and that on 14.05.2012 she had submitted her reply in response to the show cause notice dated 05.05.2012, but the respondent No. 8 refused to acknowledge the same and compelled her to submit the reply on 1 4.05.2012 annexed to the writ petition. No such statement is available in paragr aph-10 of the earlier writ petition and for that matter, throughout the writ pet ition there is no whisper regarding refusal on the part of the respondent No. 8 to accept any reply purportedly the petitioner wanted to submit other than the o ne dated 14.05.2012. Thus, there is apparent variation of stand in both the writ petitions. Above apart, on perusal of the records produced by Mr. Sarma, learned SC 6. , SWD, it seen that the petitioner herself stated in response to the show cause notice that she belongs to Chutia community which is recognised as Other Backwar d Classes (OBC). According to the show cause reply, the petitioner got married t o one Shri Thaneswar Das who belongs to SC community and thus, it is because of such marriage she also became a member of SC community. There is no whisper abou t late Bhaiti Das her purportedly her father. However, coming to the writ court, she has developed her case naming Bhaiti Das as her actual father.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 28.05.2012 addressed to the CDPO, ICDS Project, Dhemaji. In the said representation, she deviated from her own stand that was t aken by her in the show cause reply dated 14.05.2012. If the said representation was submitted on 28.05.2012, it is not understood as to why the copy of the sam e could not been annexed to the second writ petition filed on 05.06.2012 by swe aring an affidavit on the same date. She has neither annexed the copy of the s aid representation dated 28.05.2012, nor anything has been stated in the writ pe tition about the same and its contentions.

8. From the above, what is seen is that the petitioner has structured both the writ petitions with false statements. In the proceeding initiated by the dep artment, there is no whisper on her part about Late Bhaiti Das whom the petition er claims to be her father. Her categorical submission in her reply dated 14.05. 2012 is that she became a member of SC community on marriage with her husband wh o belonged to SC community. However, coming to the writ Court, she has taken a d ifferent stand stating that is the daughter of Late Bhaiti Das who belongs to SC community.

9. Records have revealed that the Deputy Commissioner and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji by their letters dated 21.05.2012 and 27.04.2012 have comm unicated that the petitioner belongs to Chutia community which is recognised as OBC and does not belong to SC community. The letter dated 27.04.2012 further sta tes that she obtained the SC certificate by way of fraud and the SC certificate is false /bogus. The records produced by learned SC, SWD also contain the repor ts of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohpur Sub-Division and Circle Officer, G ohpur Revenue Circle, Gohpur clearly stating that the petitioner is the daughter of Bhola Borah and she is the member of OBC community.

10. From of the above, what is seen is that the whole case of the petitioner is founded on falsehood and with misleading statements. She has obtained the as signment of Anganwadi Worker projecting her to be a member of SC community. The assignment was reserved for SC community candidate and thus appointment of the p etitioner to the said post deprived a genuine SC candidate. This is precisely the reasons as to why the departmental authority after following the due procedu re, has terminated the assignment of the petitioner as Angawadi Worker in the pa rticular centre. I see no reason to interfere with the same.

11. parties to bear their own costs. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are dismissed leaving the