Allowed

Mustt. Lailima Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 May 2019WP(C)/5653/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging non-appointment, this Court quashed a direction for a fresh interview because the original merit list had already been approved by the Director of Social Welfare. The Court held that without recalling the approved list or a proper promotion advertisement, holding a fresh interview was void and directed the appointment of the petitioner from the approved list.

What did the court decide?

Director of Social Welfare directed to appoint petitioner from approved merit list; direction for fresh interview quashed; authorities restrained from filling post outside the list.

Mustt. Lailima Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010021582015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5653/2015

¶5

1:MUSTT. LAILIMA BEGUM

¶6

W/O- MD. ABDUL LATIF MULLA, R/O VILL.- KADAMONI GAON, P.O.KADAMONI, P.S.- BATADRAWA, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY- 1.

¶11

3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER NAGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER NAGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶13

5:THE DIVISIONAL PROGRAMME OFFICER DIVISIONAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT CELL NAGAON DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶14

6:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BATADRAVA ICDS PROJECT DHING

¶15

Page No.# 2/6

¶16

DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B TALUKDAR

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOCIAL WELFARE

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

03.05.2019

¶22

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

¶23

Rule issued, returnable forthwith. The matter has been taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides.

¶24

In this writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.03.2013 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Batadrawa ICDS Project, Dhing, Nagaon (CDPO in short) applications were invited from the intending local women candidates, desiring to serve voluntarily for the post of Aganwadi Worker, amongst others, in respect of Kadamoni Gaon No.1 under Batadrawa ICDS Project, Dhing, Nagaon. The

¶25

Selection Committee comprised of the District Social Officer, CDPO, Senior Medical and Health Officer of the North-East PHC of the respective district and Block Development Officer of the concerned Block in terms of the notification dated 14.05.2013. Accordingly, in the interview conducted on 15.07.2013, the petitioner was placed at serial No.1 in respect of Kadamoni Gaon No.1. From the copy of the merit list annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-E, it is projected that the said merit list contains the signature and seal of the then Director of Social Welfare with an endorsement of “approved”. It is further projected that without setting aside the selection process and without recalling the merit list approved by the Director of Social Welfare, the same authority by an order dated 24.07.2015, directed fresh interview to be conducted as per the Government guideline dated 04.03.2013 in record to Kadamoni Gaon No.1, Chalapather No.2, Amlakhi Munchipara, Amlakhi No.1, Kadamoni No.2,

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

Batadrawa Saruhisa and Balichamua Gaon, Anganwadi Centres. It was further ordered that the engagement of Anganwadi Worker at Betkati Namghar Anganwadi Centre was withheld as per minutes dated 07.08.2013. It is further projected that even in terms of the said order dated 24.07.2015, the fresh dates for the interview has not been declared till date. In this writ petition, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to act in accordance with the select list published pursuant to advertisement dated 04.03.2013 and for a direction to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Kadamoni Gaon No. 1 Anganwadi Centre under Batadrawa ICDS Project, Dhing, Nagaon.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one Begum Afruja Ahmed, who was also similarly situated like the petitioner, had also filed a writ petition before this Court being WP (C) 5681/2015, challenging her non-selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.03.2013. By referring to an Annexure-B appended to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 30.04.2019, it is projected that the said Begum Afruja Ahmed was appointed by the CDPO, Batadrawa ICDS Project, Dhing, Nagaon by letter No. CDPO (BTD) 117/2013/38 dated 13.08.2018. It is submitted that thereafter as her writ petition has become infructuous with her appointment, the said lady had withdrawn her writ petition. It is further submitted that as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the stand taken by the Director of Social Welfare was that the CDPO had sent select list for approval of the Director Social Welfare, Assam, but the said Directorate vide letter No. DSW (ICDS) E/113/2013/31 dated 24.07.2015 did not approve the select list of Kadamoni Gaon No.1 Anganwadi Centre along with other centres as indicated hereinbefore and directed fresh interview to be conducted as per the Government guideline dated 04.03.2013. It is submitted that without cancelling the selection process and without any advertisement notifying that the Directorate of Social Welfare was appointing Anganwadi Worker at the Anganwadi Centres by way of promotions, without an advertisement the authorities could not have initiated the process of fresh interview in terms of notification dated 04.03.2013. It is further submitted that the said stand is not sustainable in view of the fact that Begum Afruja Ahmed was appointed vide letter dated 13.08.2018 at Chalapather No. 2 Anganwadi Centre, who was selected on the basis of interview held on 15.07.2013 under the same Batadrawa ICDPO. It is further submitted that as per the statements made in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is projected that one Miss. Anowara Begum, the then Anganwadi Helper at Kadamoni Gaon No. 3 had completed 10 years of service in the year 2013 and the Director had decided not to conduct any fresh interview as per Govt. notification No. SWD.107/2007/81 dated 04.03.2013 for AWH at Kadamoni Gaon No.3. In this regard it is submitted that in absence of any Rules, the Anganwadi Helper at Kadamoni Gaon No.3 could not have been appointed in the Kadamoni Gaon No.1 Anganwadi Centre. By referring to the

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that there was no Miss. Anowara Begum working as Anganwadi Helper at Kadamoni Gaon No.3, but the name of the helper in Kadamonigaon No.3 was one Anowara Khatun. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondents are trying to fill up the post on pick and choose basis.

¶31

The learned Govt. Advocate has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 29.03.2019 as well as the additional affidavit filed on 12.12.2018 and submitted that as there existed guidelines dated 04.03.2013 for the up-gradation of Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker, there was no requirement of first calling for applications by way of advertisement, calling various applicants for interview and conducting the interview and declaring result and then passing fresh orders to conduct interview afresh in terms of guidelines dated 04.03.2013. It is submitted that as the specific stand of the respondents is that vide letter dated 24.07.2015, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam did not approve the selection list of Kadamoni Gaon No.1 Anganwadi Centre, therefore, the present writ petition was not maintainable.

¶32

Considering the submissions made and the materials available on record, it prima-facie appears that no statement has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition to deny that the Merit list of candidates as annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-D was a fake/false document. It is also seen that the Director of Social Welfare in their additional affidavit filed on 12.12.2018 had not denied that the said Merit List (Annexure-D to the writ petition) contained an endorsement by the Director of Social Welfare that the said merit list is approved. The said Merit List contains the initial signature of the interview Board Members, i.e. the CDPO, BDO, Sub-Divisional Medical & Health Officer and the District Social Welfare Officer. It is not in dispute that the Merit List contained an endorsement of ‘Approved’ by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam. The said Merit List discloses that an interview had taken place on 15.07.2013, and that the name of the petitioner is shown at serial No. I for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Kadamoni Gaon No.1. In the affidavit-in-opposition, in various paragraphs it has been stated that the Director of Social Welfare, Assam vide letter No. DSW (ICDS) E/113/2013/31 dated 24.07.2015 did not approve the select list of Kadamoni Gaon No.1 Anganwadi Centre. The relevant contents of the said letter dated 24.07.2015 (Annexure-C of the writ petition) is extracted below:-

¶33

“In regard to Kadomonigaon No.1, Solapathar No.2, Amlakhi Munchipara, Amlakhi No.1, Kadomonigaon No.2, Batadrawa Sarusicha and Balichamuagaon,

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

Anganwadi Centres fresh interview may be conducted as per Govt. guidelines dated 04.03.2013.”

¶36

The said stand does not inspire any confidence of the Court because of the fact that by the subsequent letter No. CDPO (BTD) 117/13/38 dated 13.08.2018, Begum Afruja Ahmed was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Chalapather No.2 Anganwadi Centre as per selection held on 15.07.2013, which was accepted by the said Anganwadi Worker by joining the said post on 14.08.2018. The Merit List of candidates for post of Anganwadi Worker/Helper (Annexure-D to this writ petition) contains endorsement ‘approved’. The said endorsement of ‘approved’ contains no other endorsement that the said ‘approved’ was qualified by letter dated 24.07.2015 by the Director of Social Welfare. Moreover, if there was already a direction of not approving the Merit List in respect of Chalapather No.2 vide letter dated 04.07.2015, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam would have no power and jurisdiction to appoint Begum Afruja Ahmed, the writ petitioner in WP (C) 5681/2015 as Anganwadi Worker/Helper vide letter dated 13.08.2018. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Merit List (enclosed as Annexure-D to the writ petition) contains the endorsement of “approved” by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam and the said endorsement has not been recall or interfered with by the Director, Social Welfare as sought to be projected vide letter under Memo No. DSW (ICDS)/E/113/2013/31 dated 24.07.2015 as the endorsement of ‘approved’ by the Director of Social Welfare is not qualified that the approval was subject to conditions provided in the said letter dated 24.07.2015. Hence, the said letter under Memo No. DSW (ICDS)/E/113/2013/31 dated 24.07.2015 is held to be not sustainable in so far as it contains the direction for a fresh interview in terms of the Government Guideline dated 04.03.2013, without notifying any selection process having been initiated to promote Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker. There is no material to show that the selection process vide advertisement No. C.D.P.O (BTD) 113/2012-13/14 dated 04.03.2013 was cancelled or annulled or recalled.

¶37

In view of the categorical statement made in the said letter under Memo dated 24.07.2015 that the copy of merit list was duly approved and signed by the Director, Social Welfare and enclosed to the said letter dated 24.07.2015, this Court is also inclined to hold that as the merit list was duly approved in terms of the said letter under Memo dated 24.07.2015 by the Director of Social Welfare, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam had no power to call for fresh interview in terms of Government guideline dated 04.03.2013 in respect of Kadamoni Gaon No.1 because of the said Merit List having

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

been ‘approved’, the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 04.03.2013 had culminated and without recalling of the said selection process or cancelling the same, the process for holding fresh interview for various centres as directed by the letter under Memo dated 24.07.2015 would be void ab initio.

¶40

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to direct the Director, Social Welfare to act in accordance with the “approved” Merit List of candidates for the post of Anganwadi Worker/Helper in respect of appointment in the Kadamoni Gaon No.1 Anganwadi Centre is concerned, where the name of the petitioner stands at serial No. 1. The direction for fresh interview to be conducted in respect of Kadamoni Gaon No. 1 vide letter under Memo No. DSW (ICDS)/E/113/2013/31 dated 24.07.2015 is only set aside and quashed without interfering with the approval of the Merit List as made thereunder. Accordingly, as a consequence of the above directions, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam is restrained from filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker/Helper in Kadamoni Gaon No.1 Anganwadi Centre from outside the Merit List of candidates (Annexure-D) to the writ petition as approved by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, vide said Memo dated 24.07.2015.

¶41

The entire exercise appointing Anganwadi Worker for Kadamoni Gaon No.1 under Batadrawa ICDS Project, Dhing, district Nagaon as per ‘approved’ Merit List dated 24.07. shall be done by the Director, Social Welfare within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶42

This order shall not come in the way for the Director, Social Welfare, Assam to notify the process of filling up the posts of Anganwadi Worker by promotion from the eligible Anganwadi Helper in terms of the guidelines dated 04.03.2013 and act accordingly.

¶43

With the said observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of the aforesaid direction.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Mustt. Lailima Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustt. Lailima Begum 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malina Rabha Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Rantu Dutta and 11 Ors. Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 8 Ors.

Dipali Kalita Vs State of Assam and Ors.

Rokibul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

National Boards Limited Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

National Boards Limited Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.