In this review petition, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal seeking re-appraisal of a decision rejecting the petitioner for an Anganwaid worker post due to residency discrepancy, holding no infirmity in the earlier dismissal and advising against converting review into an appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010060402018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet. 67/2018 In WP(C) 1464/2013 (D/O)
1:MUSSTT SHAHNAZ BEGUM @ SHEHNAZ AFSARY W/O SAWKAT ALI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL. RAMPUR SATRA, WARD NO. 4, P.O. KADAMONI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782122
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE JOINT SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI-01
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001
5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782001
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BATADRAA ICDS PROJECT P.O. DHING DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 782123 7:FATEMA KHATOON W/O FAKARUDDIN VILL. RAMPUR SATRA WARD NO. 5 P.O. KADAMONI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN 78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G BAISHYA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER
Date : 02-08-2018
Heard Mr. G. Baishya, counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner’s counsel prays for review of the order dated 26.02.2018, passed in WP(C) 1464/2013, wherein the petitioner’s challenge to the appointment of the respondent No. 7 has been dismissed. The petitioner’s counsel submits that at the time of the advertisement for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner was a resident of Ward No. 5 of the revenue village in respect of Rampur Satra Anganwadi Centre. However, due to the change of the petitioner’s Ward No. 5 to Ward No. 4 in the voter list, issued by the State Government, the petitioner has been considered to be a resident of the revenue village outside the jurisdiction of the said Anganwadi Centre. He submits that as the review petitioner is a resident of the area in which the Anganwadi Centre is located, a mistake has been committed by this Court, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018, passed in WP(C) 1464/2013 and the same has to be reviewed.
Page No.# 3/4
The petitioner’s counsel further submits that even though the petitioner is now a resident of Ward No. 4, the revenue village remains the same and, accordingly, Anganwadi Centre is within the said revenue village. He, accordingly, submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in the case of Sabita Begum –VsState of Assam and others reported in 2018 (1) GLT 816, the petitioner’s resident has to be taken to be within the area covered by the Anganwadi Centre.
Counsel for the State respondents on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the findings of a committee constituted vide order dated 10.12.2009, passed in WP(C) 5913/2007. As the committee has made a finding that the petitioner was not a resident of the area in which the Anganwadi Centre was located, this Court did not commit any infirmity in passing the impugned order. He also submits that the review petitioner did not make any challenge to the decision taken by the enquiry committee constituted by this Court, vide order dated 10.12.2009, passed in WP(C) 5913/2007.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The operative portion of the order dated 26.02.2018, passed in WP(C) 1464/2013 states as follows:-
The issue raised by the alleged letter dated 21.11.2015 cannot be acted upon without the respondent no.7 being put to show cause about the same. Further, the question whether the letter dated 21.11.2015 is a valid document is questionable.
In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.”
Page No.# 4/4
The findings of the committee made in pursuance to the order dated 10.12.2009, passed in WP(C) 5913/2007 states as follows:-
“(2) WP(C) 5913/2007 (Musstt. Fatema Khatun –Vs- State of Assam and others)
The writ petitioner Musstt. Fatema Khatun has filed a case in Hon’ble Gauhati High Court against the appointed candidate for the post of Anganwadi Helper for Rampur Satra, Ward No. 5 Centre Musstt. Sahnaz Begum who is respondent No. 6 in the case on the ground that she is an outsider and not belongs to the area for which advertisement was made. Statement of both the petitioner and respondent are recorded. The petitioner has submitted copy of the writ petition. The respondent has also submitted her reply. The official respondent No. 5 i.e., the Child Development Project Officer, Batadraba has also submitted her reply. The parties to the case have also submitted documents in support of their claim. The committee also made local inspection to ascertain the truth as established that advertisement was published for the post of Anganwadi helper for Rampur Satra, Ward No. 5 Centre. After going through the writ petition, replies of respondents, statement of petitioner, respondents, documents submitted, the committee led to conclude that advertisement was published for the post of Anganwadi helper for Rampur Satra, Ward No. 5 Centre and the writ petitioner Musstt. Fatema Khatun is a resident of Rampur Satra, Ward No. 5. The respondent No. 6 Musstt. Sahnaz Begum is a resident of Rampur Satra, Ward No. 4. The committee recommends appointment of Musstt. Fatema Khatun for the post of Anganwadi helper for Rampur Satra, Ward No. 5 Centre.”
This Court is bound by the judgment of the Division Bench in Sabita Begum (supra). However, the facts in the present case are different. Further, the grounds taken in this review should have been agitated in the earlier proceeding. The facts in the present case and in WP(C) 1464/2013 would go to show that no challenge has been made by the petitioner to the decision taken by the committee, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in WP(C) 5913/2007. Accordingly, this Court does not find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Further, in the case of State of West Bengal –Vs- Kamal Sen Gupta, reported in 2008 8 SCC 612, the Apex Curt has held that review cannot partake the character of an appeal.
In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that no ground for review has been made out. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be maintained when the petitioner failed to challenge the underlying committee decision in the earlier proceeding.
Whether a mistake in determining the petitioner's residency jurisdiction constitutes a reviewable error apparent on the face of the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sabita Begum Vs State of Assam and othersFollowed¶20
Sabita Begum Vs State of Assam and others 2018 (1) GLT 816
Amarjeet Singh V. Devi RatanFollowed¶24
Amarjeet Singh V. Devi Ratan 2010(1) SCC 417 · Who else cites this
State of West Bengal Vs Kamal Sen GuptaFollowed¶31
State of West Bengal –Vs- Kamal Sen Gupta 2008 8 SCC 612 · Who else cites this
Musstt Shahnaz Begum @ Shehnaz Afsary
The State of Assam and 6 ors
Michael Zothankhuma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
