High Court · 2009

I have heard Mr. P Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4283/2009 and Mr. KK Phukan, his learned counsel in WP(C) No. 4357/200 9. The petitioner’s pleaded case in brief, is that by notification No. SWD.64/2007/Pt.I/51, dated 21.08.2009 issued by the Under Secretary, Governm ent of Assam Social Welfare Department, Dispur, the nominations of various socia l workers under the different ICDS projects of the State as members of Selection Committees for appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers were conv eyed. For the Dhakuakhana ICDS Project one Sri Kushal Borguhain and Sri Ananta Das (respondent No. 5) were nominated. According to the petitioner, on receivin g complaints against the respondent No. 5, by a subsequent Notification No.SWD.6 4/2007/Pt.I/67, dated 27.08.2009 of the same authority, the respondent No. 5 was replaced by him. The said notification was also published in the issued dated 31.08.2009 of the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary). While the matter rested at tha t, by the impugned WT Message/Fax dated 22.09.2009, also by the said authority, the earlier notification dated 21.08.2009 was restored signifying the replacemen t of the petitioner by the respondent No. 5. The State respondents have not filed any affidavit and have chos en to rely on the official records to justify the impugned action. The responde nt No. 5 in his counter, while claiming himself to be a renowned social activist of his locality apart from narrating his achievements in his field of activity, has questioned the genuineness of the notification dated 27.08.2009. While end orsing the restoration of the notification dated 21.08.2009, whereby he had been nominated to be a member of the Selection Committee for appointment of an Angan wadi worker and helper for the Dhakuwakhana ICDS Project, he has asserted that he in that capacity has already participated in the proceedings of the Selection Committee conducting the related interview on 05.10.2009. The answering respon dent has, inter alia, pointed out that the petitioner has filed two writ petitio ns on the same cause of action being WP(C) No.4357/2009 and WP(C) No.4283/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that he (peti tioner) having been consciously inducted as a member of the Selection Committee for the aforementioned project in place of the respondent No. 5 (respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 4357/2009), the impugned WT Message besides being per se, arbitra ry, also lacks in authority seeking to override the nomination made by the Gover nor of the State. On the aspect of successive petitions on the same cause of ac tion, they have maintained that they had been kept unaware of this development b y the petitioner. The learned State counsel on the basis of the records has submit ted that the petitioner, as such, has no legal right to claim nomination in the Selection Committee and that the impugned WT Message restoring the earlier nomin ation for the project involved, is on valid and relevant considerations. The lea rned counsel for the private respondent has urged, further that the Selection Co mmittee with him as a nominated member having, meanwhile, conducted the intervie w for the selection of Anganwadi worker and helper for the Dhakuwakhana ICDS Pro ject, no interference, as sought for, ought to be made. The pleadings available in the official records have been scruti nised. Noticeably, the learned counsel for the petitioner have not asserted any right of his, recognized by law, to be included in the concerned Selection Comm ittee in the capacity of a social worker. Admittedly, the petitioner’s nominati on vide notification dated 27.08.2009 had been in modification of the earlier on e dated 21.08.2009 nominating the private respondent as a member thereof. The n otification dated 27.08.2009 was as per the revised list drawn up by the Ministe r of Social Welfare & Jail, introducing several alternations in the list of nomi nees accompanying the earlier notification dated 21.08.2009. Intermittent chang es on the basis of inputs and requests made by various authorities in the compos ition of Selection Committee of different projects are also discernible from the records. The impugned WT Message, however, does not appear to be a yield of an y such request made by the Departmental Minister. Though, the reason for the issuance of notification dated 27.08. 2009 and the WT message dated 22.09.2009 vis-a-vis the Dhakuwakhana ICDS Project is not very clearly forthcoming, it at least does not appear that the restorati on of the notification dated 21.08.2009 to be consequent upon any request made b y any extra departmental authority. All these notifications significantly, have been issued in the name of the Governor of the State and, therefore, the validit y of one cannot be certified over the other. In view of the disclosures above, this Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review is of the opinion that no such blatant legal infir mity is decipherable warranting interference with the impugned notification. Th is is more particularly, in absence of any legal right vested in the petitioner to claim nomination as a member of the Selection Committee involved. The fact t hat meanwhile, the Selection Committee with the private respondent as one of its nominated members, has conducted the process for which it had been constituted, also cannot be disregarded. These petitions, therefore, lack in merit and are, therefore, dismissed. A very disturbing trend has been noticed as indicated hereinabov e, in the process of the adjudication undertaken herein. The petitioner, who cl aims to be a social worker and insists for his nomination as a member of the Sel ection Committee for that distinction has indulged in the act of initiating mult iple proceedings before this Court on the same cause of action. This too, as hi s learned counsels seek to submit by withholding this vital fact from them. As would be obvious from the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by this Court, the petit ioner on being confronted with the above, had admitted his doings and has uncond itionally apologised therefor. The conduct of the petitioner besides being whol ly irresponsible is detrimental to the credibility and dignity of the institutio n exposing it to the risk of being brought to disrepute for the unscrupulous and casual adventures of a litigant unmindful of its majesty in law and the prejudi cial consequence of shaking the confidence of the public in the justice administ ration system. This Court is, therefore of the unhesitant opinion that to curb such detestable and harmful activities deterrent and exemplary steps ought to be taken. The apology tendered, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is co nsidered inadequate and inconsequential. In the above view of the matter, a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty f ive thousand) is imposed on the petitioner to be deposited by him within a perio d of 2 (two) weeks herefrom with the Registry of this Court. The Registry would ensure that this direction is implemented without fail.