Disposed

Smti Rupali Roy Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Nov 2021WP(C)/1661/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the departmental decision not to consider the petitioner's application for a vacant Anganwadi Worker post, directing authorities to consider it only if filled via a fresh selection process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off; direction to consider petitioner's candidature if a fresh selection process is carried out for the vacant post.

Smti Rupali Roy Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010011072016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1661/2016

¶5

SMTI RUPALI ROY DAS

¶6

W/O SRI GAUTAM CHANDRA DAS VILL - NEW COLONY, P.O. LUMDING782447, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006.

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

¶11

ASSAM PANBAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001.

¶12

4:SMTI. PURABI GOGOI CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER LANKA ICDS PROJECT LANKA P.O. LANKA - 782446 DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

¶13

5:SMTI. ARCHANA MAZUMDAR D/O HORKUMAR MAZUMDER

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

VILL- LUMDING NEW P.O.LUMDING-782447 DIST. NAGAON ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S DASGUPTA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.C PATOWARY R-4

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R

¶20

17.11.2021

¶21

Heard Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 01.10.2013 in the Lumding New Colony Anganwadi Centre by the Child Development Project Officer, Lanka ICDS project. Subsequent to this one Smti Archana Mazumdar who was an Anganwadi Helper was upgraded to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Lumding New Colony Anganwadi Centre by way of an order dated 12-06-2014. Being aggrieved by such decision, the petitioner approached this court and vide order dated 10.12.2014 passed in WP(C)/4457/2014, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the departmental authorities by filing a representation. It was also provided that after filing such representation before the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, the said authority shall dispose of the same by a speaking order, after hearing the parties to the case. However, it was also provided that no adverse order shall be passed against the respondent No. 5 in the said writ petition without affording any opportunity of being heard.

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

In compliance of the said direction, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam vide order dated 11.11.2015 held that the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Anganwadi Worker in Lumding New Colony Anganwadi Centre under Lanka ICDS Project was not justified. It was also directed by the Director in the said order that the upgradation order of the respondent No. 5 in WP(C)/4457/2014 was also not genuine and accordingly direction was issued to cancel the upgradation order of the respondent No. 5 with a further direction to issue a fresh advertisement. Accordingly an advertisement was issued on 19.01.2016. The fact remains that the order dated 11.11.2015 passed by the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam pursuant to the order of this court passed in WP(C)/4457/2014 has not been put to challenge. Therefore, this court is not required to judicially review that order.

¶25

Now, the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that though the petitioner applied for the post advertised but her name was not reflected in the list of candidates who applied against the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the authority for non-inclusion of her name as candidates in the said writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned Counsel Mr. as on date is that her representation is still pending. Mr. Dhar also candidly submits that the selection process was completed and selected person was also appointed. But such person was dismissed from service and the post is still lying vacant. Therefore, at this stage he prays for a direction to the Director Social Welfare to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of her representation.

¶26

The learned State Counsel, Mr. J.K. Goswami taking que from the affidavit filed submits that the petitioner lacks required qualification as given in the

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

advertisement as well as in the corrigendum issued on 22.01.2016 pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.01.2016.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is non reflection of her name even though she applied for the post. A specific pleading has been made though the petitioner has filed her application but in the list of candidates who applied for the said post, her name has not figured at the behest of the officials of the respondent authority. On a pointed query to the Learned State Counsel whether the such allegation as has been pleaded in the paragraph 16 his writ petition, has been rebutted by the sate, the learned State counsel submits that no such rebuttal has been made.

¶30

The matter has been pending since the year 2016.

¶31

The vacancy was filled up long back, though a submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the post is still lying vacant and therefore, her representation needs to be considered.

¶32

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, at this belated stage no direction for consideration of the representation of the petitioner at the hands of the respondent authority can be issued, more particularly, the earlier selection process was concluded by filling the said vacant post and no interim protection was given to the petitioner. Further, to fill up the vacant post, if any, as stated by the petitioner, a fresh selection process needs to be carried out.

¶33

Therefore, in the given peculiar circumstances, the ends of justice would be met, if a direction is issued to consider the candidature of the petitioner, if such vacant post (if any) is filled by a fresh selection process. Accordingly, it is so directed. However, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered as per

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

law and as per extant qualifications required for such post.

¶36

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed off, however no order as to cost.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Smti Rupali Roy Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Rupali Roy Das v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Prabin Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smt. Prova Chetia and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smt. Prova Chetia and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Reba Kanta Mili Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rewat Ch. Gogoi and 7 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Marzina Khatoon Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.