27.03.2017 submitted by 50 (fifty) people of the area of operation of Bedetiguri AWC, it is submitted that apart from local residents, the Sarkari Gaonbura had also signed the representation and had prayed for reinstating the petitioner as AWW in Bedetiguri AWC on the ground that after her acquittal by the Court, the petitioner was acceptable to all the local people. Thus, it is submitted that there was widespread acceptability of the petitioner, as such, the two grounds on which the service of the petitioner had been terminated, being (i) charged for murder of her husband, and (ii) non- acceptability by local people, had both ceased to exist, as such, it is submitted that the respondents No.1 to 5 were liable to reinstate the petitioner back in service. It is submitted that the service of the petitioner was not based on the ground that the petitioner was facing criminal charges, but the ground for terminating her service was that she had become unacceptable to the public. It is also submitted that respondent No.7 was not a duly selected candidate for being appointed as AWW at Bedetiguri AWC, but she was working as a stop gap arrangement and, as such, none of the respondents would suffer any irreparable prejudice if the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service. Therefore, while pressing for reinstating the petitioner in service, an alternative submission that if the Court is not inclined to accept the prayers made in the writ petition, in that event the post of AWW at Bedetiguri AWC must be re-advertised with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the fresh selection process. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported judgment and order dated 26.05.2015, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1436/2008 (Mrs. Hafijan Begum Vs. State of Assam & Ors.)
