Disposed

Smt. Uma Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Dec 2019WP(C)/1205/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a dismissal from an Anganwadi Worker selection based on residency rules. The High Court ordered a Circle Officer to verify conflicting maps and determine the correct boundary to resolve the dispute within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Circle Officer to conduct enquiry into map discrepancies and report to Director of Social Welfare within three months.

Smt. Uma Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010009722016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 1205/2016

¶5

1:SMT. UMA DAS

¶6

W/O. SRI SANTOSH DAS, VILL. SOCIETY RATAN PALLI, P.O. and P.S. SILAPATHER, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 5 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GHY.-781006.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. ASSAM UZAN BAZAR GHY.-781001.

¶11

3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DHEMANI DIST. ASSAM. 5:THE CHILD DEV. PROJECT OFFICER SISSIBORGAON ITEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DHEMAJI.

¶13

6:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL DHEMAJI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K BORAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOCIAL WELFARE

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶18

Date : 11-12-2019

¶19

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶20

Heard Mr. PK Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent authorities.

¶21

Pursuant to a selection process initiated in the year 2009, amongst others, for the post of Anganwadi Worker under the Sissiborgaon Integrated Child Development Project, the petitioner had offered her candidature and subjected herself to the selection procedure. In consideration thereof, as the authorities had withdrawn the result of the petitioner, an earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.6562/2011 was filed. By the order of 07.09.2012, the respondents were directed to act upon the selection process and to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, when the results were declared, the petitioner was shown to be a resident of outside the concerned Anganwadi centre and in the circumstance, WP(C) No.1348/2013 was preferred. By the order of 20.05.2015, the Director of Social Welfare was required to pass an appropriate order taking into account certain enquiry report that was prepared by them.

¶22

Consequent to the order of 20.05.2015 in WP(C) No.1348/2013, the order dated 07.11.2015 was passed by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam. The order in respect of the petitioner, who participated in the selection process pertaining to No.2 Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre is as follows:-

¶23

“No.2 Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre:

¶24

Demarcated area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre is

¶25

East: Residence of Samir Das

¶26

West: Residence of Jagadish Mandal

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

North: Residence of GAutam Das

¶29

South: Residence of Palash Das

¶30

The area map shows that the residence of the petitioner Smt. Uma Das is not within the concerned Anganwadi Cenre area. The concerned area Supervisor has also reported that the name of the petitioner has been enrolled in another Anganwadi Centre i.e. Society Anganwadi Centre. The Lat Gaonbura of Society Gaon has also certified that the petitioner Smt. Uma Das is a residence of the said village.”

¶31

The order of the Director clearly reveals that the petitioner was not found to be a resident within the concerned Anganwadi Centre and the area Supervisor has reported that the name of the petitioner was enrolled in another Anganwadi Centre namely Society Anganwadi Centre. The order of 07.11.2015 of the Director passed in respect of the petitioner is assailed in this writ petition.

¶32

In the writ petition, a survey report is annexed at page-61 Annexure-H. The report also includes a map of the Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre containing a signature bearing an illegible seal, but the seal appears to be somebody related with ICDS project. The map also contains the signature of the Lat Gaonbura, Society Gaon, Silapathar as well as the President/Secretary of Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre.

¶33

The map which is found at page-65 along with the survey report shows the boundary of Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre and the house of the petitioner, which is stated to be marked as house No.20 is included within the map of Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre.

¶34

The respondent authorities on the other hand produces another map also bearing the signature of the President/Secretary of Ratanpali Gaon Panchayat as well as that of the Lat Gaonbura, Society Gaon, Silapathar. The map produced by the respondent authorities appears to be at a variance with the map found at page-65 of the writ petition. Be that as it may, the map produced by the respondent authorities does not include the house of the petitioner within the area shown to be that of the Ratanpali Anganwadi Centre.

¶35

In view of the variance in the two maps being produced and relied upon by the respective parties, we direct the Circle Officer of Sissiborgaon Revenue Circle to conduct an enquiry and submit a report as to which of the two maps are factually correct. In doing so, the Circle Officer shall also enquire from the Lat Gaonbura, Society Gaon, Silapathar to the

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

extent as to why the Lat Gaonbura had issued and signed two different maps, one to the petitioner and the other to the respondent authorities. If any manipulation and collusion is detected, the Circle Officer to take appropriate action against the Lat Gaonbura under the law.

¶38

On the other hand, after the enquiry report is submitted by the Circle Officer and if the map relied upon by the petitioner as found at page-65 of the writ petition is found to be the factually correct map, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a fresh appropriate order. The requirement be done within a period of three months from today.

¶39

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Uma Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Uma Das v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Japhed Dhan and 17 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Arup Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Arup Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Md. Jakir Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Dr. Bipin Chandra Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Golap Chandra Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.