Dismissed

Smti Lilima Begum v. Smti Fulara Khatun and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jun 2023I.A.(Civil)/445/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an interlocutory application seeking leave to prefer an appeal. It held that the applicant, appointed in the first respondent's post due to her illegal termination, lacked locus standi to challenge the order reinstating the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application and associated writ appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.

Smti Lilima Begum Vs Smti Fulara Khatun and 7 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010024702019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/445/2019

¶5

SMTI LILIMA BEGUM W/O ABDUL HYE MOLLAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUJARPITH PO KUKARPITH, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781315

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1: SMTI FULARA KHATUN AND 7 ORS W/O NEHAR ALI,

¶8

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUJARPITH, PO KUJARPITH DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781315

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZAN BAZAAR GUWAHATI 781001

¶11

4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER PAKABETBARI ICDS PROJECT BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSAM

¶12

5:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER PO AND DIST BARPETA 781315

¶13

6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM 781315

¶14

7:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM 781315

¶15

8:THE SUPERVISOR OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER PAKABETBARI ICDS PROJECT KEYAKUCHI BARPETA 78131

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

For the Applicant : Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Advocate. Mr. N.G. Kundu, Advocate.

¶18

For the Respondents : Mr. P.B. Mazumder, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mrs. R.B. Bora, Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.2 to 8.

¶19

– B E F O R E –

¶20

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶21

09.06.2023

¶22

The matter comes up for orders on the interlocutory application filed by the applicant herein seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5974/2015, whereby the aforesaid writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 was accepted and the order dated 14.07.2014 dismissing the respondent No.1 from service as Anganwadi Worker at No.2 Kujarpith Anganwadi Centre under Pakabetbari ICDS Project, Barpeta was interfered with and reversed.

¶23

It may be mentioned here that the applicant herein filed review petition along with Misc. Case No.151/2017 seeking leave to file a review of the order dated 15.09.2016, referred to (supra). The said application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.06.2019 holding that the removal of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) from service by order dated 14.07.2014 was illegal. If the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had not been terminated from her post, the applicant would never have been appointed/engaged in the writ petitioner’s post. As the illegal removal of the writ petitioner had been done prior to the appointment of the applicant, the setting aside of the writ petitioner’s termination order has to relate back to the time when the writ petitioner’s service was terminated, i.e. 14.07.2014. It was further observed that the applicant’s right to post of Anganwadi Worker would come

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

into existence subsequently and would become effective only if the Court came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner did not have a right to the post in question.

¶26

In these circumstances, it cannot be disputed that the applicant herein has no locus to question the order passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the termination of services of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was interfered with and was reversed. Hence, there is no reason to grant permission to the applicant for filing an appeal against the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5974/2015.

¶27

Thus, the interlocutory application as well as the associated writ appeal (Filing No.1282/2019) are dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶28

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Smti Lilima Begum v. Smti Fulara Khatun and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Lilima Begum v. Smti Fulara Khatun 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

Asian Energy Services Ltd. and Anr. Vs Oil India Ltd. and Anr.

Asian Energy Services Ltd. Vs Oil India Ltd. and Anr.

Mamtaj Begum Vs the State of Assam and 16 Ors. F

Smti Lilima Begum Vs Smti Fulara Khatun and 7 Ors.

Jalal Uddin Sheikh Vs Niraj Verma and 4 Ors.

Dhyan Foundation Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.