Disposed

Jebun Nessa Siddique v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Jun 2022WP(C)/2826/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-promotion despite fulfilling eligibility criteria for a reserved quota of Anganwadi Workers. Court held promotion requires competition on merits but petitioner must receive fair consideration including weightage for long service.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; directions to give weightage for long service in future recruitment drives for Supervisor post.

Jebun Nessa Siddique Vs the State of Assam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010107132011

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2826/2011

¶5

JEBUN NESSA SIDDIQUE

¶6

D/O ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE, VILL. CHANGER ALGA, PO. CHUNARI, PS. LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. F ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY-6.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR

¶11

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT ASSAM UZAN BAZAR GHY-1

¶12

3:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

¶13

GOALPARA PO/PS. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM

¶14

4:THE PROGRAMME OFFICER

¶15

STATE I.C.DS.CELL DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE PROBATION ASSAM GUWAHATI-1

¶16

5:THE CHILD DEV. PROJECT OFFICER

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

ICDS PROJECT LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSA

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M HUSSAIN

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶22

ORDER

¶23

02.06.2022

¶24

Heard Shri MU Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner is an Anganwadi Worker having been appointed vide an order dated 31.01.1991 in the Changar Alga Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner claims to be a Graduate and is otherwise qualified and eligible for being promoted to the post of Supervisor. It is the case of the petitioner that 25% quota of the post of Supervisor being reserved for the Anganwadi Worker and there are a number of posts of Supervisor lying vacant, the case of the petitioner has not yet been considered. It is the case of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C)/9547/2004 in which an order dated 23.12.2004 was passed directing consideration of the case of the petitioner. The same was followed by a contempt proceeding in which an order dated 02.09.2009 was passed. However, the petitioner is yet to be promoted to the post of Supervisor. Hence, the present petition was filed.

¶26

Shri Mondal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she being eligible and qualified in all aspects as a right of fair consideration for promotion

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

to the post of Supervisor against quota of 25%. It is contended that to be promoted as a Supervisor, an incumbent in the feeder cadre of Anganwadi Worker needs to complete 10 years of continuous service and be a Graduate and both the essential qualifications are fulfilled by the petitioner and therefore, there is no reason as to why she has been deprived of promotion to the rank of Supervisor.

¶29

On the other hand, Shri Dhar, the learned State Counsel submits that there is no indefensible or inherent right for promotion and such right is only limited to a fair consideration. Therefore, it may not be correct on the part of the petitioner to claim promotion to the rank of Supervisor only on the basis of the fact that she has completed 10 years of continuous service and has acquired her Graduation in the meantime. The State Counsel submits that the quota of 25% for filling up of the post of Supervisor from the post of Anganwadi Worker, one has to compete after being declared qualified and only after such competition on merits, a person would get the benefit of such promotion. It is accordingly contended that no relief as such is entitled to by the petitioner. On a specific query put by the Court, Shri Dhar has submitted that upon instructions that there is no recent move to hold any recruitment process for the post of Supervisor.

¶30

The submission of the learned counsel for the rival parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

¶31

No doubt, a quota has been carved out by reserving 25% of the post of Supervisor to be filled up from the cadre of Anganwadi Worker who fulfills the eligibility criteria of 10 years of continuous service and being a Graduate, all such aspirants in the rank of Anganwadi Worker and fulfilling the aforesaid criteria have to compete for the said quota of 25% and promotion cannot be automatic.

¶32

In the instant case, the petitioner appears to be qualified as she has completed more than 10 years of continuous service as Anganwadi Worker and has also obtained her Graduation. But mere fulfillment of the eligibility criteria would not be sufficient to

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus for such promotion. However as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases, right to a fair consideration for promotion being a fundamental right, the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Supervisor is to be considered fairly and at par with similarly situated Anganwadi Workers as and when move is there to make recruitment of Supervisors. Since, the petitioner has been serving since the year of 1991 and has in the meantime completed about 3(three) decades, her case and length of service may be given weightage while making in any future recruitment process for the post of Supervisor in which the petitioner may participate.

¶35

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Jebun Nessa Siddique v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jebun Nessa Siddique v. the State of Assam and 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

Rofiqul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Putul Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Board of Directors of Gopinath Samabay Samiti Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abinash Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abdul Karim and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Har Kanta Das and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.