Petitioner challenged selection for Mini Anganwadi Worker alleging manipulation and delay that warranted fresh selection. Court found affidavit disclosures sufficient to rebut mala fide claims due to lack of corroborative evidence. Writ petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010015782015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3528/2015
SMTI RITAMONI DAS
W/O SRI PRABHAT CH. DAS, R/O BAHARISATRA DEKAPARA, P.O. BAHARIHAT, P.S. TARABARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY-1
3:BIMAL MAHANTA DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER BARPETA AND ALO CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DIST- BARPETA PIN-781301
4:CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER CDPO CHENGA ICDS PROJECT DIST- BARPETA 5:KRISHNA BAYAN DAS W/O SANJIT DAS R/O BAHARISATRA DEKAPARA P.O. BAHARIHAT P.S. TARABARI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRR KARIM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOCIAL WELFARE
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 02-08-2021
Heard Shri S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam representing the official respondents. Respondent No.5 who was served has declined to contest the present writ petition.
Page No.# 3/4
authorities in manipulating the selection by giving benefit to the respondent No.5. 4. On the other hand, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the CDPO dated 30.07.2015 submits that the selection was done by following the due process of law. It has been stated in the paragraphs 4 & 5 that no doubt there has been a delay in the finalization of the selection but that delay was because of some inevitable reasons including the MP elections in the meantime and retirement of the earlier incumbent.
Page No.# 4/4
petitioner pertains to setting aside the select list and to initiate fresh selection process. This prayer is only because of the fact that the respondent No.5 has scored more marks than the petitioner and was declared to be the first candidate. In absence of any other materials regarding the allotment of marks of the respondent No.5 which is more than the petitioner, this Court is not in position to accept the present challenge.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a sufficient case to interfere under Article 226 to set aside a selection list where delay was explained by affidavit and no other material shows manipulation.
Whether the affidavit filed by the CDPO was sufficient to rebut allegations of mala fide against the selection authorities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ritamoni Das
State of Assam
Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam
Director of Social Welfare Assam
Bimal Mahanta
Child Development Project Officer CDPO
Sanjay Kumar Medhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
