This writ petition challenges the promotion of an Anganwadi Worker over the petitioner, alleging prior absenteeism of the promoted employee. The High Court held that the promotion issue involves disputed facts, the petitioner failed to show a violated legal right, and thus lacked locus standi. The petition was 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.# 1/6
GAHC010166682022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5455/2022
SOKUNTALA DAS W/O AICHARAM DAS, VILL.- DAKHIN KANDURA, P.O.- SANKARDEV NAGAR, P.S.- LANKA, DIST.- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782442.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DERARTMENT ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435.
4:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER HOJAI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435.
5:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER UDALI ICDS PROJECT
Page No.# 2/6
UDALI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782446. 6:PRATIMA DAS W/O DIBAKAR DAS VILL.- DAKHIN KANDURA P.O.- SANKARDEV NAGAR P.S.- LANKA
DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782442
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 02-09-2022
Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper in the year 2009 against the Nathgaon Namghar Anganwadi Centre. As the Anganwadi Worker of the said Anganwadi Centre had resigned, the petitioner was made the in-charge Anganwadi Worker in the year 2011.
2. On 31.12.2021, a Notification was published by the State respondents, to fill up the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in the Nathgaon Namghar Anganwadi Centre, in which the petitioner had been working as in-charge Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner and the respondent No. 6 took part in the
Page No.# 3/6
selection process for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker. The respondent No. 6 was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the Nathgaon Namghar Anganwadi Centre.
3. The petitioner herein has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker to the Nathgaon Namghar Anganwadi Centre, on the ground that the respondent No. 6 was always absent, while working as Anganwadi Helper in the Nathgaon Ward No. 2 Namghar Centre, which is a different Anganwadi Centre. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon complaints dated 24.01.2018 & 29.11.2021 written by Ms. Bani Debnath to the CDPO, Udali ICDS Project and letter dated 05.10.2020 written by some other persons to the said CDPO.
4. As no action was being taken by the State respondents in respect of the complaint written to the State respondents, regarding the alleged absence of the respondent No. 6 from her duty as Anganwadi Helper in the earlier Anganwadi Centre, where she had worked, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 2880/2022, praying for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 6.
5. This Court disposed of WP(C) No. 2880/2022 vide Order dated 06.05.2022, stating that the only challenge made to the respondent No. 6 by the petitioner was in relation to the allegation that the respondent No. 6 was continuously absent in her earlier Anganwadi Centre and as such, could not have been considered for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Nathgaon Namghar Anganwadi Centre. This Court further noted that the petitioner had not made any representation against the respondent No. 6, with regard to the respondent No. 6 being continuously absent as Anganwadi Helper in the
Page No.# 4/6
Anganwadi Centre, in which she had earlier worked.
6. This Court, vide Order dated 06.05.2022 dismissed WP(C) No. 2880/2022 stating that the same was not a public interest litigation and allegations made by the petitioner were disputed questions of fact, which could not be decided by a writ Court.
7. The petitioner, thereafter submitted a representation dated 31.05.2022 to the Director of Social Welfare Department, challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker, on the ground that as the petitioner had worked as in-charge Anganwadi Worker in Nathgaon Namghar Anganwadi Centre from the year 2011, the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Further, as the respondent No. 6 should not have been promoted, as she was continuously absent as Anganwadi Helper in her earlier place of work, i.e., Nathgaon Ward No. 2 Namghar Centre, the petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the present Anganwadi Centre.
8. Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for all the respondents submits that the petitioner has again filed the present writ petition on the same set of facts, which had already been decided by this Court in WP(C) No. 2880/2022. As the Order dated 06.05.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 2880/2022 has attained finality, the writ petition should be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. The only challenge made to the promotion of the respondent No. 6 to the post of Anganwadi Worker by the petitioner, is that the respondent No. 6 was
Page No.# 5/6
continuously absent, while working as Anganwadi Helper in Nathgaon Ward No. 2 Namghar Centre. As held by this Court in the earlier round of proceedings, i.e., WP(C) No. 2880/2022, the said question is a disputed question of fact. It is also not disputed that the petitioner took part in the selection process for promotion along with the respondent No. 6 and was not selected. There is nothing to show that the respondent No. 6 lacked the eligibility criteria to be promoted to the post of Anganwadi Worker.
11. In the case of Director of Settlements, AP & Others Vs. M.R. Apparao & Another (supra), the Apex Court has held at paragraph 17 that one of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus, is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a right of mandamus.
12. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Apex Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. It further held that there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. It further held that the existence of a legal right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Courts and that legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of
Page No.# 6/6
infractions of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. The Apex Court further held that the expression, ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury. A person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized.
13. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that any legal or fundamental right of hers has been violated. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.
14. In view of the reasons stated above, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the present writ petition. However, as the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 31.05.2022 to the Director of Social Welfare Department, it is expected that the Director shall take a decision on the petitioner’s representation, within a reasonable time.
15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the promotion of another applicant where the promotion decision involves disputed questions of fact regarding prior absenteeism.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 to enforce a legal right to promotion when the existence of a legal right is not established and the aggrieved person claim is merely imaginar
Whether a high court can decide disputed questions of fact regarding employment qualifications in a writ proceeding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director of Settlements, AP & Others Vs. M.R. Apparao & AnotherExplained¶35
Sokuntala Das
Pratima Das
State of Assam
Director of Social Welfare, Assam
Deputy Commissioner, Hojai
District Social Welfare Officer, Hojai
Michael Zothankhuma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
