High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 993/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.S.JAMIR JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitio ner as well as Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, Mr. B.K. Sarma, l earned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department and Mr. J. Abedin, learned co unsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. 2. The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Jugijan ICDS Project, Hoja i, Nagaon Panchayat published an advertisement dated 10.9.2009 inviting applicat ions from intending woman candidates for the post of Anganwadi Worker/Helper for Jugijan ICDS Project containing certain terms and conditions. The petitioner be ing a permanent resident of the locality and eligible candidate for the Centre D ighalbali No. 2, located at Ward No. 9 under Singaribasti Gaon Panchayat, under Jugijan ICDS Project applied to the post of Anganwadi Worker annexing all the re levant documents as required under the advertisement. The petitioner was selecte d for interview which was scheduled to be held on 7.10.2009. As regard, the resi dential status of the petitioner, the Government Gaonbura Member of Gaon Panchay at of that locality issued certificates, certifying that the petitioner is a per manent resident of the said Centre and the locality. The interview which was to be held on 7.10.2009, for certain reasons could not be held on that date and int erview was held on 9.10.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the responde nt No. 3 is not a resident of the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre and is also less qu alified than the petitioner. On that date of interview i.e. 9.10.2010, the petit ioner along with some persons from the locality had raised objection and informe d the authority that the respondent No. 7 is actually a resident of Ward No. 8 a nd, therefore, she cannot be allowed to appear in the selection process. In spit e of the complaints lodged against the respondent No. 7, the authority allowed t he respondent No. 7 to appear in the interview and the respondent No. 7 was ulti mately selected as Anganwadi Worker by the select list dated 29.1.2011. It is th e case of the petitioner that apart from not being a resident of the said locali ty and being less qualified than the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 belongs to the Dimasa community which consist of only 40% of the total people of the local ity and, therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 7 was in violation of the Government guidelines framed for that purpose. Being aggrieved , the instant writ petition. 3.
Decision
The respondent No. 6 i.e. the Child Development Project Officer, Jugijan ICDS Project, Doboka, Nagaon (Assam) has filed affidavit-in-opposition contesti ng the writ petition. It is the case of the respondent No. 6 that the applicatio n forms along with the enclosures of both the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 7 reflects that they both belongs to the village Dighalbali No. 2 and resid ing within the AWC area as per the Gaon Burah Certificate issued in favour of th e petitioner and respondent No. 7. It is further contended that the respondent N o. 7 possesses the required qualification incorporated in the guideline and, the refore, the respondent No. 7 is not less qualified than the petitioner. The affi davit-in-opposition further shows that in the comparative statement, the respond ent No. 7 obtained 54.6 marks whereas the writ petitioner had obtained 46.4 mark s. Therefore, considering the residential status of the private respondent No. 7 and the performance in the interview she was selected for the said post. 4. The respondent No. 7 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition against the writ petition denying the allegation made by the writ petitioner and stating tha t she belongs to the Dimassa Kachari community which is a recognized Scheduled T ribe. The respondent No. 7 had passed her HSLC in the year 2004 and she is a loc al person of Dighalbali No. 2 Anganwadi Centre within Jugijan ICDS Project. It i s also the case of the respondent No. 7 that the Government Gaonburah of Dighalb ali Raikatk village had certified that the respondent No. 7 is a local person of Dighalbali village by issuing the certificate which she had submitted along wit h her application. The respondent No. 7 was selected in the selection process an d she is serving as a Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the engagement letter dated 1 .2.2011 issued by the CDPO, Jugijan ICDS Project, Nagaon. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. A t this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the Government of Assam, Social We lfare Department has issued a notification dated 19.9.2009 modifying the guideli nes for selection of Anganwadi Worker and Helper contained in the earlier notifi cation dated 31.8.2009. Therein, the eligibility criteria, selection process etc . has been laid down. While considering the submissions of the contesting partie s, it is seen that the petitioner is challenging the residential status of the r espondent No. 7 for being eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker for the Centre Dighalbali No. 2 located at Ward No.9 under Singaribasti Gaon Pancha yat. This has been resisted by the respondent No. 6 as well as the respondent No . 7. Such question of dispute cannot be entertained by this Court sitting as a w rit Court. Under the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in the en ds of justice to direct the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam to inquire into the matter as to whether the respondent No. 7 was eligible for applying for the post of Anganwadi Worker and thereafter being appointed in the said post for the aforesaid area/Centre by taking into conside ration the certificate issued by the Government Gaon Burahs, the guidelines issu ed by the Govt. of Assam by notification dated 19.9.2009 and also the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement dated 10.9.2009. The respondent No. 3 is directed to conduct inquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to both th e petitioner as well as the respondent No. 7 and, thereafter pass appropriate or der(s) as provided by law. Such inquiry and passing of appropriate order(s) shou ld be done within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certi fied true copy of the order of this Court. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum if still aggrieved. 6. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.