Dismissed

Ms. Radina Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2020WA/327/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two linked writ appeals challenging the withdrawal of appointments of Anganwadi Workers due to manifest irregularities found by the trial court. The bench upheld the Single Judge's dismissal of the earlier selection, noting interpolation in the records, and dismissed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals NO. 327/2019 and NO. 328/2019 dismissed.

Ms. Radina Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010282372019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WA 327/2019

¶5

1:MS. RADINA BEGUM

¶6

W/O MD. NAZIMUDDIN VILL- HAHCHORI P.O. KALATOLI P.S. CHHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

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

¶11

3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER KAMRUP DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶12

4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER CDPO GOROIMARI ICDS PROJECT GOROIMARI KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶13

5:SMTI. DEVA PROBHA KAKOTI

¶14

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) SAMARIA ICDS PROJECT SAMARIA KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶15

6:MS SANIWARA KHATUN

¶16

W/O JOHIRUL ISLAM VILL- HAHCHORI P.O. KALATOLI

¶17

P.S. CHAYYGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSA

¶18

For the Appellants : Ms. B. Hazarika, Advocate.

¶19

Ms. P. Choudhury, Advocate.

¶20

For the Respondents : Mr. S.R. Boruah, Government Advocate, Assam

¶21

for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶22

Linked Case : WA 328/2019

¶23

1:MS. MOFIDA BEGUM W/O- SUKUR AHMED

¶24

Page No.# 2/4

¶25

R/O- VILL.- CHOWDHURY PAM P.O. KALATOLI P.S. CHHAYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶26

VERSUS

¶27

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶28

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

¶29

ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI PIN- 781001.

¶30

3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶31

4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) GOROIMARI ICDS PROJECT GOROIMARI KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶32

5:SMTI. DEVA PROBHA KAKOTI

¶33

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) GOROIMARI ICDS PROJECT GOROIMARI KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶34

6:MS. JOHURA KHATUN

¶35

W/O- ABDUL MALEK R/O- VILL.- CHOWDHURY PAM P.O. KALATOLI P.S. CHHAYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶36

For the Appellants : Ms. B. Hazarika, Advocate. Ms. P. Choudhury, Advocate.

¶37

For the Respondents : Mr. S.R. Boruah, Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶38

- B E F O R E -

¶39

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Date : 11-02-2020 (Ajai Lamba, C.J.)

¶42

Heard Ms. B. Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals. Also heard Ms. S.R. Boruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both the appeals.

¶43

2. This order shall dispose of 2(two) writ appeals, namely, Writ Appeal No.327/2019, which is directed against judgment dated 23.10.2019 rendered in WP(C) No.1345/2014 (Ms.

¶44

Page No.# 3/4

¶45

Saniwara Khatun -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.) and Writ Appeal No.328/2019 directed against decision dated 23.10.2019 rendered in WP(C) No.1357/2014 (Ms. Johura Khatun -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.).

¶46

Evidently, the writ appellants were private respondents in the 2(two) writ petitions. Both the cases relate to the same issue, viz. selection for the post of Anganwadi Workers. Common impugned judgment was rendered in both the writ petitions.

¶47

3. On going through the file, we find that pursuant to advertisement dated 28.02.2007 for selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers in different Centres, the private respondents/writ petitioners as well as appellant/ writ respondents applied. Select list was prepared. Select list became subject matter of challenge in earlier petition, viz. WP(C) No.3108/2007, which was disposed of by directing an enquiry to be conducted.

¶48

After enquiry, a fresh select list dated 02.08.2012 was prepared. The private writ respondents were placed at serial No.1 and were consequently appointed. The said appointments came to be challenged before the Writ Court.

¶49

4. The State, through Child Development Project Officer of the Project, took the stand that the entire selection process in respect of Anganwadi Workers in question had ended in the year 2007. On going through the Selection Committee record, it was found that there was overwriting. It was not known as to why Selection Committee prepared 2(two) individual mark-sheets signed by one of the members, i.e. Dr. Birendra Nath Lahkar.

¶50

Essentially, in the affidavit-in-opposition, Shri Ahmed, Child Development & Project Officer stated that he was not posted at the relevant time, however, on going through the record, he found interpolation.

¶51

5. Be that as it may, learned Single Judge in his wisdom summoned the original record. On going through the record, observations have been recorded in the impugned judgment in Paragraphs 10 and 11 in the following terms:-

¶52

“10. Shri Doley, the learned State counsel while submitting that the selection has been held in accordance with law has produced the record as indicated above. An examination of the record including the mark-sheet would show that the allegation of manipulation in the marks is fortified. There are over-writings, use of whiteners and change of marks without any endorsement so far as the marks allotted to the private respondents are concerned by the individual invigilators. The very basis of having a

¶53

Page No.# 4/4

¶54

fair selection appears to be violated by such manipulation which appears in the original records.

¶55

In view of the above, without going further into the merits of the case, the impugned selection does not appear to have been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and therefore, there is no other way but to set aside the same so far as the same concerns the particular Anganwadi Centers in question.”

¶56

6. Since the issue was again raised in this writ appeal jurisdiction, we have summoned the record and have gone through it carefully. Indeed, there is interpolation in the record. The figures recorded recording marks assigned to the candidates have been rubbed and overwritten, without any counter signature.

¶57

7. Considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and finding interpolation in the selection record, we do not trace any illegality in the concussions drawn by learned Single Judge. A possible view has been taken, which is not required to be interfered with in intra-Court appeal jurisdiction, because it is based on observations recorded by the Court, which observations we endorse.

¶58

8. With the above observations, writ appeals stand dismissed.

¶59

9. The record has been returned to Mr. S.R. Boruah, learned Government Advocate,

Assam.

JUDGE

CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant

Ms. Radina Begum v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Radina 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhaya Roy Vs Axis Bank Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Sumi Kerai and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Khanish Kumar Bhattacharjee and Anr. Vs M/S Landmark Establishmentsp Ltd. and Ors.

Anjali Ray and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ms. Mofida Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Ranjanmoni Baruah and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.