Disposed

Gita Moni Milli v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2022WP(C)/1163/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by an Anganwadi Worker selection candidate challenging the appointment of a non-resident, the Gauhati High Court held the matter involved disputed questions of fact and granted liberty for further representation to the authorities.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a representation to respondent No. 3 within 10 days, to be decided by respondent No. 3 within a month after hearing respondent No. 8.

Gita Moni Milli Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010035892020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1163/2020

¶5

GITA MONI MILLI

¶6

D/O- CHANDRA MILLI, W/O- NIRAN TAID, R/O- VILL- ROUMARI TEKIDUBI BIL, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781006, KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN- 781006 KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ASSAM

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT KACHARI GHAT MG ROAD UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 01

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICE LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

PIN- 787001

¶15

5:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 7:BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUNWAR GAON LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787032 8:ANJALI TAID PAYENG W/O- RANA PAYENG VILL- CHALICHUK KAPAK CHAPORI DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N BARMAN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 14-03-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. R. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. No one appears for the respondent No. 8, even though office note dated 24.02.2022 states that Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 8.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner took part in the selection process for appointment of an Anganwadi Worker in Roumari (Teki Dubi Beel) Anganwadi Centre in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.01.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 8 had been appointed as an Anganwadi worker, even though the respondent No. 8 is not a resident of the boundary area for the above Anganwadi Centre, in terms of the advertisement dated 28.01.2019.

¶24

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the matter pertains to disputed questions of fact, a direction may be issued to the respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the matter pertains to disputed questions of fact, the petitioner may be allowed to submit a representation to the respondent No. 3, who should be directed to take a decision on the matter.

¶25

4. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 submits that he has got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶26

5. On going through the pleadings and keeping in view the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the matter pertains to disputed questions of fact.

¶27

6. Accordingly, in view of the above reason, the petitioner is given the liberty to file a representation to the respondent No. 3, with regard to her grievance that the respondent No. 8 is not a resident of the area of the Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner should file her representation, within a period of 10 (ten) days, which should addressed to the respondent No. 3. The

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

respondent No. 3 shall thereafter take a decision on the petitioner’s representation, within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the representation and decide the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 8. The decision taken by the respondent No. 3 should be communicated to the petitioner.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Gita Moni Milli v. the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gita Moni Milli v. the State of Assam and 7 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

Rajdeep Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Hasina Begum and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ranjan Deka Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Debasish Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ratul Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.