Petitioner challenged the appointment of the respondent as an Anganwadi Helper alleging she was not a local resident. The court found she was a resident and scored higher marks. Petition dismissed.
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.# 1/3
GAHC010003862010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/689/2010
REKHA KELLENG TERON
W/O SRI BUBUL TERON, R/O VILL- KATHALGURI, P.O. JHARGAON, P.S. JAGIROAD IN THE DIST. OF MORIGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6
2:TEH DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY-1.
3:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFIER
MAYANG INTREGATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT JAGIROAD MORIGAON ASSAM.
4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION OF ANGANWADI WORKERS AND HELPERS UNDER MAYANG INTREGATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT JAGIROAD MORIGAON ASSAM.
5:SMTI POPI DEKA
W/O SRI DHARMENDRA DEKA
Page No.# 2/3
R/O VILL- BILIMARA GAON P.O. JHARGAON P.S. JAGOROAD IN THE DIST. OF MORIGAON
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY order
13.12.2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition is filed assailing the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Helper in Kathalguri (Mini) Anganwadi Centre No. 312 under Mayang Integrated Child Development Project, Jagirod, Morigaon district. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 is not a local person within the jurisdiction of the Anganwadi Centre. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per clause 2 of the advertisement dated 19.09.2009, the candidate must be a local person under the jurisdiction of the Anganwadi Centre. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 5, who is outside the jurisdiction of the Anganwadi Centre was in violation of the clause of the advertisement and therefore that needs to be set aside. The respondent State through the Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Jagirod district Morigaon has filed his affidavit inter-alia taking the following stands.
“5. That as regards statement made in the paragraphs 5 of the writ petition the
Page No.# 3/3
answering deponent begs to state that the respondent No. 5 along with other applicants submitted residential proof certificate issued by the President, Jahargaon Gaon Panchayat, dated 30.09.2009 and as per the certificate she is residing nearer to Kathalguri (Mini) Anganwadi Centre. The respondent No. 5 was selected on the basis of her performance in HSLC and the interview. Whereas the petitioner secured 106 marks in aggregate, the respondent No. 5 secured 204 marks in aggregate.”
Such stand of the respondent authority has not been countered by the writ petitioner though, such pleading was filed on 24.05.2010. From the materials available on record, it is also seen that the respondent No. 5 had scored a total marks of 204. Another candidate, namely, Barnali Keleng had secured 168 marks and the petitioner herein had secured 106 marks.
There is no denial to the statement that the respondent No. 5 was resident within the jurisdiction of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. Therefore, this court is left with no option but to hold that the respondent No. 5 was resident within the jurisdiction of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. The certificate issued to respondent No. 5 by the local Gaonburah is also not disputed. The comparative statement of marks allotted by the interview board has also not been disputed by the writ petitioner. Thus the status of the respondent No. 5 and the mark obtained by her and the petitioner remain uncontroverted. In view of the above finding, the ground of challenge to the selection of respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker that she is not a resident within the concerned centre is liable to be negated. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit. Same is, therefore, dismissed. However no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of the respondent as an Anganwadi Helper violates the advertisement clause regarding local residence since she is a resident of the jurisdiction.
Whether the selection process was proper given the comparison of marks secured by the petitioner and the successful respondent.
REKHA KELLENG TERON
THE STATE OF ASSAM
POPI DEKA
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
