Disposed

Ambiya Khatun v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Mar 2022WP(C)/333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for an Anganwadi helper post on residence grounds, the court, upon consent of parties, directed the government officer to conduct an independent inquiry into the residence status of both the petitioner and the selected candidate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to cause an inquiry and decide the issues of residence after a hearing.

Ambiya Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010006992022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/333/2022

¶5

AMBIYA KHATUN D/O- ABDUL WAHED, R/O- VILLAGE BATAHDIYA, P.O- BATAHDIYA, P.S- SUALKUCHI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781137

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWHATI-06

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01

¶9

3:DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER KAMRUP (R) P.O- AMINGAON

¶10

DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN-781039

¶11

4:CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER P.S- CHHAYGAON P.O- CHHAYGAON

DIST- KAMRUP(R)

Page No.# 2/4

PIN 781124

5:NURJAHAN BEGUM D/O- DEJUHAN ALI R/O- VILL KANAHARA P.O- TUKRAPARA P.S- GOROIMARI

¶16

PIN- 781137 6:JAHINA KHATUN W/O- ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE

¶17

VILL-PACHGUMI P.O- AAGGUMI P.S- CHHAYGAON DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78113

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J MOLLAH

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 09-03-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. J.Mollah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Parajuli, learned counsel for the State respondent nos.1 to 4. None appears for the respondent nos.5 and 6.

¶24

The office note dated 29.01.2022 stated that notices were issued upon the respondent nos.5 and 6 on 29.01.2022 and the office note dated 05.03.2022 states that unserved notice has been received back from the

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

respondent no.6.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent no.6 had taken part in the selection process for appointment of the Anganwadi helper in the 259 No. Batahidiya Anganwadi Centre in terms of the advertisement dated 08.11.2021.

¶28

Although the petitioner took part in the interview, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of the area covered by the above Anganwadi centre.

¶29

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is a resident of the above Anganwadi centre, while the respondent no.6, who is the selected candidate for appointment in the Anganwadi centre, is not a resident of the area covered by the Anganwadi centre. He also submits that the CDPO, Chhaygaon, Kamrup had instructed the respondent no.5, who is the Anganwadi worker in the said Anganwadi centre, to cause an inquiry as to whether the petitioner and the respondent no.6 were residents of the area covered by the Anganwadi centre.

¶30

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondent no.5 made a report to the effect that the petitioner was not a resident of the area covered by the Anganwadi centre, while the respondent no.6 was a resident of the area. He also submits that the respondent no.5 is a close relative of the respondent no.6 and, as such, the inquiry report of the respondent no.5 was biased and incorrect. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the issue involved pertains to

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

disputed questions of fact, a direction may be issued to the respondent no.2, to inquire into the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision as to whether the petitioner and the respondent no.6 are residents of the area covered by 259 No. Batahidiya Anganwadi Centre.

¶33

Mr. J.K. Parajuli, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 submits that he has got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶34

In view of the consent of the parties, the respondent no.2 is directed to cause an inquiry and come to a decision, as to whether the petitioner and the respondent no.6 are residents of the area covered by the said Anganwadi centre, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.6. The entire exercise will be completed within a period of 6(six) weeks, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

¶35

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Ambiya Khatun v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambiya Khatun v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Assam Vs Satya Nath Narah and 3 Ors.

GO-2518 Shri M.L Agrawal Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Anfore Ali Haque Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

The State of Assam Vs Tuleswar Deori

Nurul Amin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sumit Paul Vs Hussain Ahmed and 2 Ors.