High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3995/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. K. Sar ma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department for respondent Nos. 1, 2 , 3 and 4. Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Board of Secondary Educat ion, Assam, has appeared for respondent No. 5 and Ms. T. Bhuyan, learned counsel has appeared for respondent No. 6. By way of this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of selection and appo intment of respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker in the No. 1 Adaveti Pub Anganwa di Centre under Sootea ICDS Project in the district of Sonitpur (Assam).
Legal Reasoning
Case of the petitioner is that advertisement was issued on 28.12.2010 by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Sootea ICDS Project for engagemen t as Anganwadi Worker and Helper in the Anganwadi Centres under the said ICDS Pr oject. One of the eligibility conditions mentioned in the advertisement was that the applicant should be within 18 to 44 years of age as on 01.01.2009. Both pet itioner and respondent No. 6 applied pursuant to the said advertisement and part icipated in the selection for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the said No. 1 Adaveti Pub Anganwadi Centre. In the selection held, respondent No. 6 was placed in the first position securing 43.7 percent marks and petitioner was placed in the second position with 42.2 percent marks. Petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No . 6 on the ground that she was under aged at the time of filing of her applicati on. She was below 18 years of age as on 01.01.2009. Further contention is that t he admit card of the Assam High Madrassa Examination, 2007 and the pass certific ate of the said examination submitted by respondent No. 6 were manipulated ones which disclosed her date of birth as 01.01.1991 whereas her actual date of birth is 09.04.1991. The admit card showing her date of birth as 01.01.1991 is a for ged one and on the basis of that document, she was found to be exactly 18 years as on 01.01.2009 and her candidature was accepted. As per information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent No. 6 also disclosed her ag e as 18 years as on 01.01.2009 in her application form. This Court by order dated 08.08.2011 while issuing notice, directed the respondent No. 5 to make an enquiry and to furnish report regarding authenticity or otherwise of the certificate submitted by respondent No. 6 for her selection as Anganwadi Worker. Respondent No. 5 has filed affidavit. It is stated therein that as per r ecords in the office of the Secondary Education Board of Assam (SEBA), the parti culars of respondent No. 6 discloses that her date of birth is 09.04.1991. Photo copies of the admit card and the pass certificate (Annexures- H & I to the writ petition) are not photo copies of the originals and appear to be forged documen ts as the particulars furnished therein do not tally with the SEBA’s records. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 15.03.2012 stayed the appointment of respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 3 in her affidavit has stated that respondent No. 6 was s elected on the basis of merit. As per admit card received alongwith her applicat ion form, her age was 18 years, her date of birth being 01.01.1991. No complaint was received regarding manipulation of admit card in respect of age of responde nt No. 6. Respondent No. 6 has filed an application for modification of the order dated 15.03.2012 passed by this Court staying her appointment and the same has b een registered as Misc. Case No. 3555/2012. This Court by order dated 15.03.2013 granted time to the respondent No. 6 to file additional affidavit in support of authenticity of her claim for appoi ntment as Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, she filed additional affidavit on 05.04.2013. In the said a ffidavit, respondent No. 6 has enclosed amongst others copies of her admit card and pass certificate of Assam High Madrassa Examination, 2007 wherein her date o f birth is recorded as 09.04.1991.
Legal Reasoning
Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondent N o. 6 has produced before the Court the originals of the above certificates which clearly shows that her date of birth is 09.04.1991. She submits that respondent No. 6 had submitted these documents with her application form wherein date of b irth is recorded as 09.04.1991 and that respondent No. 6 is not aware as to how the documents which discloses her date of birth as on 01.01.1991 found place in the record. Learned Standing Counsel submits that since the documents speak for them selves, he would not like to make any comments in this regard. Thus the position which emerges is that the date of birth of respondent No. 6 is 09.04.1991 and not 1.1.1991. The documents which disclosed the date of birth of respondent No. 6 as 01.01.1991 are apparently manipulated. Therefore, h er declaration in the application form that she was 18 years of age as on 01.01. 2009 was incorrect as she was below 18 years of age as on that date. In view of the admitted position that the date of birth of respondent No . 6 is 09.04.1991, she was clearly below 18 years of age as on 01.01.2009 and wa s not eligible to submit application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 28 .12.2010. As she was not eligible to participate in the selection, respondents c ould not have selected and appointed her as Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, the selection of respondent No. 6 is held to be illegal. Co nsequently, her appointment becomes legally untenable. Accordingly, both her selection and appointment are set aside and quashe d. Petitioner being the second candidate in order of merit, respondent No. 3 (CDPO, Sootea ICDS Project) shall now issue the consequential appointment orde r in favour of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of No. 1 Adaveti Pub Anganwadi Centre within a period of 3 (three) weeks’ from today after verification of her relevant documents. Writ petition is allowed. No cost.