High Court · 2009

I have heard Mr A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) N os.5432/2009 and 5438/2009, who also represents the private respondent No.5 in W P(C) No.1545/2010. Also heard Mr K Bhatta, learned counsel for the petitioners i n WP(C) No.1265/2010, as well as learned counsel appearing for the petitioners i n WP(C) Nos.1545/2010 and 1555/2010. I have also heard Ms P Chakraborty, learned standing counsel for the Social Welfare Department, appearing for State respond ents. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.5432 /2009 and 5438/2009 and the private respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.1545/ 2010 that CDPO published the select list on 13th November 2009, after conducting the selec tion pursuant to the guidelines issued and on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview, and hence there was no occasion for the Govern ment of Assam in issuing the communication dated 13th November 2009 directing th e CDPO not to publish the select list and not to engage any candidate pursuant t o such selection. It is also submitted that pursuant to the orders issued by the CDPO on 13th November 2009 directing the petitioners to report for their respec tive duties, they did join as such and, therefore, there is no question of condu cting any enquiry relating to the conduct of the selection by the selection comm ittee, which was in fact conducted fairly and in terms of the guidelines issued from time to time. Learned counsel submits that the stand taken by the departmen t in the affidavit-in-opposition that there was gross anomaly in conducting the selection, as was found by the enquiry committee constituted for that purpose, i s not based on materials on record, and such enquiry report therefore cannot be accepted. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that while directing the responden t authorities to allow the petitioners to discharge their duties pursuant to the ir engagement, WP(C) Nos.1265/2010, 1545/2010 & 1555/2010, be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.1265/2010, 1545/2010 and 1555/2 010, referring to the averments made by the Deputy Secretary to the Government o f Assam in Social Welfare Department in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP( C) No.5432/ 2009, has submitted that it is apparent there-from that there was gr oss violation of the guidelines issued for the purpose of selection as anganwadi workers/ anganwadi helpers and in fact the select list was prepared even before the date of the interview. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the entire selection process be set aside and respondents be directed to initiate the proce ss de novo for selection of candidates for engagement as anganwadi workers/ anga nwadi helpers. Learned standing counsel for the Social Welfare Department, placing reli ance on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed, has submitted t hat after the interview, a large number of complaints, with regard to the allege d commission of illegality in conducting the selection process, were received, p ursuant to which Government had issued the communication dated 13th November 200 9 directing the CDPO not to publish the select list and not to issue any order o f engagement to any of the candidates pursuant to such selection. It is further submitted that thereafter an enquiry was conducted by Programme Officer, Divisio nal ICDS Cell, Kamrup, and District Social Welfare Officer, Nalbari, who, on com pletion thereof, submitted their report on 17th November 2009, wherein it was me ntioned that there was large-scale anomaly in conducting the interview. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the aforesaid position, the Government of A ssam decided to conduct an enquiry by the Joint Director as well as Deputy Direc tor of Social Welfare Department, who, accordingly conducted enquiry, and on com pletion thereof, submitted their report on 24th May 2010 pointing out the large- scale anomaly in the selection and violation of guidelines during the course of such selection process. Learned counsel, however, submits that the report of the enquiry has been placed before the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of As sam in Social Welfare Department on 24th May 2010, but because of pendency of th e present batch of writ petitions, no final decision on such report could be tak en. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that Government of Assam in Social Welfa re Department be permitted to take a final decision in the matter. As noticed above, in two of the writ petitions, the selected candidates have claimed their engagement as anganwadi workers/anganwadi helpers and their c ontinuance in such engagement, apart from challenging the communication dated 13 th November 2009 issued by Government of Assam in Social Welfare Department. The other 3 writ petitions are filed challenging the entire selection process, incl uding the select list, if any, published. It appears from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Assam in Social Welfare Department that an enquiry into the allegations of large-scale anomaly committed during the cou rse of selection was directed to be conducted and accordingly a preliminary enqu iry was conducted by 2 officers of the department, who, on completion thereof, s ubmitted their report on 17th November 2009. The Government of Assam thereafter took a decision to conduct another enquiry and as such, entrusted Joint Director and Deputy Director of the department to conduct such enquiry, who, on completi on thereof, submitted their report on 24th May 2010, wherein the following anoma lies were found: (cid:28)I. That the area of the center which should be demarcated properly is mandatory as per the norms prescribed by the govt of India was violated befor e carrying out the selection under scrutiny, in any of the 195 centres the area of the centers were not surveyed before proceeding with the selection. II. As per the norms the population in any Anganwadi center shall no t exceed maximum one thousand and minimum population should not be less than fiv e hundred. The enquiry reveals as many as five Anganwadi Centres under the said project where the total population is less than five hundred. The enquiry reveals that the CDPO cum Member Secretary failed to maintain the record which he was under obligation to maintain as per the guidel III. ine before initiating any selection process. IV. The concern CDPO also failed to maintain the record of the appli cation invited from the candidates for selection of the Anganwadi workers and he lpers. V. That the records relating to selection as per the guideline was required to be kept in safe custody of the Circle Officer concern but during the course of enquiry the record could not be produced by the Circle Officer since the records were not available in the office and whereabouts of the record could not given by the concerned officer. VI. The guideline relating to keeping the record in safe custody to protect them from being destroyed or manipulation or in other words to protect t he sanctity and correctness of those records was also violated. VII. The selection committee also fails to discharge its obligation i n scrutinizing the application received before calling the candidates for interv iew. Seventy such discrepancies were identified by the enquiry committee as deta iled in the Enquiry report. VIII. There were also discrepancies in preparation of select list/meri t list, marks entered therein, comparative statement prepared on that basis. The comparative statement was prepared in violation of the guideline. The format wa s improper, the selection committee had committed error in awarding 100 marks ea ch while the guideline provides for awarding maximum 30 marks by each member of the committee. The inflated marks therefore resulted in gross mistake in the tot al average marks awarded to the candidates. Therefore the position in the select list was specified on faulty marks assigned to them, which resulted in gross vi olation of the guidelines. IX. The comparative statement reveals manipulation. The statements s eems to have been prepared on 15.10.2009 but which was actually prepared on 11.1 0.2009. The figure 11 was replaced with 15 but page 60 of the comparative statem ent the CDPO and the Circle Officer failed to enter such change in the same and therefore the page reflects in the date column to be dated 11.10.2009. X. The comparative statement was finalized three days prior to comp letion of the interview. (cid:29) Apart from the above anomalies, it is also stated that the comparative statement was finalized without the knowledge of non-official members of the selection co mmittee, and prior to 3 days of the completion of the interview. Certain observa tions were also made against the CDPO, and Circle Officer(who was the Chairman o f the selection committee). It also appears from the affidavit-in-opposition tha t the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Assam in Social Welfare Departme nt though has received the enquiry report dated 24th May 2010, no final decision has been taken, because of the pendency of the present batch of writ petitions. Since there are certain allegations pertaining to anomalies in selection and the Government of Assam deemed it fit and proper to direct an enquiry and t he enquiry was conducted accordingly, the Government is to take the final decisi on in the matter, on the basis of the materials available on record and keeping in view the reports submitted by the committees appointed for that purpose, whic h, admittedly, has not been done. By communication dated 13th November 2009, the selection process, that was conducted, has in fact been kept in abeyance till a final decision is taken by the Government in that regard. That being the position, the present batch of writ petitions are dispose d of with a direction to the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Assam in Social Welfare Department to take a final decision in the matter on the basis of the reports submitted by the aforesaid committees, as well as on the basis of t he materials available on record, and to pass a speaking order within a period o f 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to say that if any of the parties are aggrieved by the order that may be passed by the Government, he/she may ventilate his/her grievances before the appropriate forum, if so advised. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.