Disposed

Smt. Goma Devi v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Aug 2022WP(C)/1779/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Director's order dismissing the petitioner's claim for employment as an Anganwadi Worker in favor of respondent No. 9. The High Court noted that the petitioner's specific claim regarding the absence of the respondent's husband's house in the 2009 survey remained uncontroverted. The Court remanded the matter for a specific enquiry on this residence issue.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by remanding the matter to the Director of Social Welfare for a specific enquiry into the 2009 survey inclusion of the respondent's husband's house and to conduct a f

Smt. Goma Devi Vs the State of Assam and 8… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010011442016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1779/2016

¶5

SMT. GOMA DEVI W/O- MR. DIPENDRA SARMA, R/O- SILBHETA, P.O.- BAMUNIJAN, P.S.RAHA, DIST.- NAGAON, PIN- 782425, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. UZAN BAZAR GHY- 1 KAMRUP M ASSAM.

¶9

3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.O. and DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782001 ASSAM. 4:THE DIVISIONAL PROGRAMME OFFICER ICDS CELL NAGAON PIN- 782001 DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM.

¶10

5:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER NAGAON

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782001 ASSAM. 6:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER RAHA ICDS PROJECT NAGAON PIN- 782425 DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 7:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KAPILI ICDS PROJECT NAGAON PIN- 782425 DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RAHA REVENUE CIRCLE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PROJECT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE OF AWW AND AWH UNDER RAHA ICDS PROJECT RAHA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782425 ASSAM. 9:BINITA MEDHI CHETRY W/O- MR. GANESH CHETRY R/O VILL.- SILBHETA P.O.- BAMUNIJAN P.S.- RAHA DIST.- NAGAON PIN- 782425 ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R BORA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R HUSSAIN R-9

¶15

Page No.# 3/7

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 08-08-2022

¶19

Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, being the authorities under the Social Welfare Department as well as Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon and Circle Officer, Raha. Also heard Ms. M. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 Smt. Binita Medhi Chetry.

¶20

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.09.2009 of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Raha Integrated Child Development Project (Raha ICDS) in respect of, amongst others, Silbheta No. 2 Anganwadi Centre for the purpose of recruitment of Anganwadi Worker, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 9 had participated. In the selection process, the respondent No. 9 was selected and appointed. We have taken note that the advertisement provides the name of the centre to be Silbheta 2 which is under the Hatbar Panchayat and the jurisdictional area of the Anganwadi Centre is stated to be Silbheta Village (Silbheta Gaon).

¶21

On being not selected and appointed, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 5495/2009, which was given a final consideration by the order dated 03.08.2011 and the matter was remanded back to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to reconsider the matter by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, an order dated 30.05.2012 was passed by the Director, whereby the claim of the petitioner was upheld and the CDPO was directed to place the matter before the Project Level Selection Committee for taking further action.

¶22

Page No.# 4/7

¶23

The views of the Project Level Selection Committee were discussed at the Directorate, Social Welfare on 04.09.2012 along with the members of the Committee and it was decided that an enquiry report be called for from the Programme Officer, Divisional ICDS Cell, Nagaon and accordingly, an order dated 18.10.2012 was issued. In the resultant report of the Programme Officer submitted vide letter dated 10.12.2012, it was provided that the residence of the respondent No. 9 was outside the survey area of the Silbheta Anganwadi Centre under Raha ICDS Project and that her name had not figured in the survey register of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. By the order dated 01.02.2013 of the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, the appointment made in respect of the respondent No. 9 was found to be unacceptable and accordingly, there was a direction to the CDPO to remove the respondent No. 9 as an Anganwadi Worker of Silbheta Anganwadi Centre and to place the matter before the Project Level Selection Committee for selection of suitable candidate.

¶24

The consequential order dated 30.09.2013 was issued by the CDPO, Raha ICDS Project, whereby the respondent No. 9 was removed. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 9 instituted WP(C) No. 414/2014, which was given its final consideration by the order dated 11.11.2014, by which there was direction to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to arrive at a finding on the basis of the available records on the question as to whether the respondent No. 9 was within the jurisdictional area of the Anganwadi Centre and that she became an outsider because of the shifting of the Anganwadi Centre as per the public decision. It was further provided that if the respondent No. 9 was found to be a resident of the Anganwadi Centre when the selection was made, merely because the same had been shifted on public demand, she would not be categorized as an outsider.

¶25

Page No.# 5/7

¶26

In compliance with the order dated 11.11.2014 in WP(C) 414/2014, the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam had passed an order dated 10.08.2015. In the said order, the Director had noted that it was the claim of the respondent No. 9 that as per the report of the Project Level Selection Committee dated 25.10.2013, the respondent No. 9 was not an outsider when the engagement was made, but she became an outsider when the centre was shifted to another place as per the public decision. Accordingly, another report was obtained from the Divisional Programme Officer, Nagaon which was dated 22.07.2015. As per the report dated 22.07.2015, it was revealed that originally the Silbheta Anganwadi Centre was near the residence of the Anganwadi Worker at Bhokatpara Namghar, which was later on shifted to Silbheta Prathamik Bidyalaya, from where it is functioning. The Divisional Programme Officer in the report provided that the original survey register of the concerned Anganwadi Centre was not available but however, as per the old survey register of the Anganwadi Centre under the signature of the CDPO, Raha, the name of the respondent No. 9 Smt. Binita Medhi Chetri was listed against house No. 67 at Sl. No. 2 and the name of the petitioner Smt. Goma Devi was listed against house No. 48 at Sl. No. 3.

¶27

Accordingly, by the order of 10.08.2015, the Director arrived at its conclusion to recall the earlier order of 01.02.2013, by which the respondent No. 9 was discontinued from service and allowed the respondent No. 9 to remain the Anganwadi Worker of Silbheta Anganwadi Centre. The order dated 10.08.2015 is assailed in this writ petition. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, a statement is made that as per the survey that was done in the year 2009, there is no house of Sri Ganesh Chetry, the husband of the respondent No. 9 Smt. Binita Medhi Chetry and therefore, the claim of the respondent No. 9 that

¶28

Page No.# 6/7

¶29

she was within the jurisdiction of the Anganwadi Centre but later on became an outsider while the Centre was shifted to another place was incorrect. 7. The said averment of the writ petitioner in paragraph 17 had been dealt with by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 11, wherein it is stated that there is evidence of Silbheta Anganwadi Centre running in the land of Giasuddin Ahmed. The specific averment of the petitioner that in the survey of 2009, the house of Sri Ganesh Chetry was not there had not been controverted in any manner. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner in response to the averment of the departmental authorities in paragraph 11, reiterates the earlier statement of paragraph 17 of the writ petition which remains uncontroverted. As the State authorities in the Social Welfare Department had failed to controvert the specific assertion of the petitioner in the survey of the year 2009 that the house of Sri Ganesh Chetry was not included, under law of non-traversal it has to be accepted that the said statement of the writ petitioner would be accepted. We again remand the matter back to the Director of Social Welfare for a specific enquiry as to whether in the survey of the year 2009, the house of the husband of the respondent No. 9 Sri Ganesh Chetry was not included in the survey report. If in the year 2009, the house of the husband of the respondent No. 9 was not included, it has to be understood that the petitioner was also not a resident of the said area. The Director to make the enquiry but in the proceeding, give a hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 9 to have their respective views. If the conclusion arrived at is in favour of the petitioner, the Director may pass necessary order against the respondent No. 9 and give a consequential benefit to the petitioner by appointing her or if the conclusion arrived at is to the contrary, may pass any reasoned order as may be admissible in law. We are

¶30

Page No.# 7/7

¶31

clarifying that the matter has been remanded back to the Director only for the specific purpose indicated above on the question whether the house of the husband of the respondent No. 9 Sri Ganesh Chetry was included in the survey 2009 and the Director will not be empowered to take a de-novo decision on the matter apart from the aforesaid purpose for which the matter has been remanded back. We are not interfering with the order dated 10.08.2015 of Director in the present writ petition but make it subject to the outcome of the exercise that the Director is directed to undertake as per this order. The requirement be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated of.

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Goma Devi v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Goma Devi v. the State of Assam and 8 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

Biswajit Malakar and 37 Ors. Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Mohanta

Sayed Zakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Haren Deka Vs Rakesh Kumar, IAS and 2 Ors.

Moni Kanta Sinha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ratneswar Bania Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sabitri Paik Vs Management of Pertabghur Tea Estate