High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3359/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, Mr. BK Sarma, learned Standing c ounsel, Social Welfare Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. J Handique, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. In response to an advertisement dated 12.03.2007 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, in short, CDPO, Chenga ICDS Project, inviting applications fo r appointment as Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in respect of the Centr es mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner submitted her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Ramharipara A.W.C. Centre. The respondent No. 5 was selected as the Anganwadi Worker for the centre in ques tion. There is a requirement in the advertisement that the candidate must be a residen t of the centre area for which the application is submitted. Alleging that the r espondent No. 5 is an outsider, meaning thereby, she is not a resident within th e centre, she filed a writ application alongwith 2 (two) other persons, namely, Majida Khatun and Monowara Khatun and the said writ petition was registered as W P(C) 1814/2008. It is relevant to note that petitioner No. 3 Monowara Khatun challenged the appo intment of one Julekha Khatun, who was selected as Anganwadi Worker for Changban dha Balir Chowk A.W.C. Centre. It is not very clear whose selection Majida Khatun had assailed in the said writ petition from the present materials on record. The learned counsel for the parties submit that actually one Julekha Bhanu was s elected as the Anganwadi Worker for Changbandha Balir Chowk A.W.C. Centre but he r name was wrongly reproduced as Julekha Khatun in the earlier writ petition. This preface is necessary in order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
Decision
The writ petition WP(C) No. 1814/2008 was disposed of by an order dated 10.12.20 09 alongwith a large number of writ petitions with the following directions: (cid:28)The Committee(s) to be constituted by the Commissioner & Secretary as aforesaid shall be so constituted as expeditiously as possible but not later than 31st Ja nuary, 2010. Upon such constitution of the said Committee(s), same shall be not ified. The petitioners shall approach with their individual and authenticated wr it petitions, which will be treated as their representations. As suggested by t he learned counsel appearing for both the official and private respondents, they may also submit their authenticated copies of the affidavit, which have been fi led in some of the writ petitions. Such authentication may be made by the parti es themselves or their learned counsel. In case of any doubt regarding authenti city, the Committee(s) will be at liberty to get the same verified through the l earned State Counsel. Upon submission of the aforesaid documents, the Committee(s) as per its own modality find out the truth or otherwise of the grievances made in the writ petitions. After the aforesaid scrutiny is done, the Committee(s) shall answer all the cases by appropriate and speaking orders. Depending upon the orders so passed, the consequential action to be taken by the departmental authorities wil l follow. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Committee(s) as expedit iously as possible but at any rate not later then 4(four) months from the date o f constitution of the Committee(s). The Committee(s) will decide the issues involved as per the existing mod ality and guidelines. The Committee(s) will make it clear that in case of furnis hing any distorted version of the related state of affairs, the officers concern ed shall be liable for disciplinary proceedings. It will be open for the selected and appointed candidates who are not pa rties to this proceeding to submit their documents through affidavits before the said Committee(s). With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. Reco rds received by the Registry from the official respondents shall be sent back. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Add l. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam. Bring this order to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (J) (cid:29). It is not in dispute that Sub-Divisional Level Committees were established pursu ant to the order dated 10.12.2009. It also appears from the order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure-6) that the Sub-Divisi onal Level Committee for Chenga ICDS Project, upon verification of documents, ha d recorded a finding that Sahera Khatun, who was selected for the post of Anganw adi Worker for Ramharipara A.W.C. Centre does not belong to that centre and that she is a resident of Holongapara village and as such her selection is in violat ion of the guidelines in force. In terms of the order of this Court dated 10.12.2009, depending on the orders pa ssed by the Sub-Divisional Level Committees, consequential actions were to be ta ken by the departmental authorities. At this stage, it will also be relevant to note that cases of other candidates u nder Chenga ICDS Project were also determined by the said order dated 26.08.2010 . On 02.07.2011, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam issued a letter to the CDPOs recommending actions as indicated in the said letter based on recomme ndation of Sub-Divisional Level Committee in respect of Barpeta district, Darran g. Recommendation was also made in respect of Chenga ICDS Project with reference to WP (C) No. 1814/2007 (Sic). While it is submitted that recommendation was made for cancellation of engagemen t of Julekha Khatun (Julekha Bhanu) which also figured in the recommendation dat ed 26.08.2010 of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, there is no reference at al l in the letter dated 02.07.2011 with regard to recommendation relating to Sahe ra Khatun and Danesa Khatun. Presently, we are not concerned with the case of Da nesa Khatun. Mr. Roshid submits that in view of the clear recommendation of the Sub-Divisiona l Level Committee, selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Wo rker of Ramharipara A.W.C. Centre is liable to be set aside and a direction shou ld be issued to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as she had s tood 2nd in the interview. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, su bmits that although the committee had opined that she is not a resident within t he Ramharipara A.W.C. Centre, the competent authorities had not recommended canc ellation of her appointment. Respondent No. 5 had no occasion to challenge the f inding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee as it was considered that the appropriate authorities had not taken cognizance of the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee. Mr. BK Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare Department submits that i t is incumbent on the part of the departmental authorities to have taken note of the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee to pass appropria te orders. However, it is apparent that no such decision was taken by the depart mental authorities with regard to Sahera Khatun. The position that has emerged is that there is a recommendation for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No. 5 by the Sub-Divisional Level Committe e but such recommendation has not been taken note of by the state respondents a t the time of issuing the letter dated 02.07.2011. It is incumbent on the author ities to consider the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee in te rms of the order of this Court dated 10.12.2009 and to recommend appropriate dir ections based on such recommendation. In view of the above position, the only order to be passed at this stage is to d irect the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Social Welf are Department to take note of the recommendation of Sub-Divisional Level Commit tee dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure-6) in respect of the post of Anganwadi Worker of Ramharipara A.W.C. Centre (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and pass appropriate orders based on the said communication. As the matter is pending for more than 5 (five) years, the Commissioner & Secretary, Social Welfare Department shall pa ss appropriate orders within a period of 1 (one) month from today. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No costs.