Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 10 (GAU)

Firoja Begum v. State of Assam

2014-01-03

TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI

body2014
JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the engagement of the respondent No. 7 (an outsider) by the respondent authorities as Anganwadi helper for No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10) under No. 4, Bhujmari village Aganwadi Centre by overlooking her case (a local candidate). The case of the petitioner is that she passed her Class VIII standard examination, is a resident of No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10) under No. 4, Bhojmari village Anganwadi Centre and, is, therefore, eligible to be engaged as Anganwadi Centre. The eastern boundary of this Anganwadi Centre is Tiniali (Masjid), its western boundary being the house of Sirajul, its northern boundary as Dighali Beel and Mariani Beel as its southern boundary. The respondent No. 7 is a resident of the neighbouring Anganwadi Centre and is, therefore, not eligible for her engagement in No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10). 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, who is the Child Development Project Officer of Sootea Integrated Child Development Project, Sonitpur issued the advertisement dated 28.12.2010 inviting applications from interested candidates to serve as volunteer for the posts of Anganwadi worker and helper. One of the eligibility criteria for the post of Anganwadi Helper is permanent residency of the area of the selected centre: certificate to that effect should be signed by the local by the Local Government Gaonburha as well as a member of the Gaon Panchayat. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner offered her candidature for the post of Anganwadi helper by submitting her application as per the prescribed form annexed with all the requisite documents including he certificates of the respective Panchayat and Gaonburha. Apart from the petitioner, there was another candidate for the Centre in question. She was then called upon to take part in the interview held on 22.2.2011, which she did. As she performed well in the interview, she had legitimately expected that she would be selected for the post, which turned out to be a false expectation. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that when she was not informed of the result of the interview for considerable period of time, she sought for the comparative statement of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview held on 22.2.2011 and was, after inordinate delay, furnished to her on 14.12.2011. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that when she was not informed of the result of the interview for considerable period of time, she sought for the comparative statement of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview held on 22.2.2011 and was, after inordinate delay, furnished to her on 14.12.2011. On the basis of the comparative statement, she found that she had been selected whereas the other candidate was not selected as she was found to be underage. According to the petitioner, the legality of her selection was never questioned by any authority or person and, as such, she should have been engaged as Anganwadi helper. On the contrary, she was surprised to find that the respondent No. 7, a rank outsider and who not even a candidate for this Centre, was engaged as Anganwadi helper for the Centre. It is the contention of the petitioner that the engagement of the respondent No. 7 as Anganwadi helper at No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10) under No. 4 Bhojmari overlooking her is contrary to the term and condition of the advertisement in question and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents through the respondent No. 4, who has filed her affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No. 4 does admit that the respondent No. 7, on verification, was found to be an outsider which prompted the Committee to cancel her selection. She, however, claims that the petitioner is also not qualified as the record reveals that she is an outsider: she does not belong to the demarcated boundary (area of the No. 4 Bhojmari of No. 2 Chubri AWC. She admits that the respondent No. 7, though anon-local candidate, was appointed as Anganwadi helper but only on purely temporary basis for a period of 3 months as per approval of the Divisional Programme Officer and her appointment was subsequently extended by another three months for smooth functioning of the activities of Anganwadi Centre. She claims that the interview for this vacant post will be held after getting necessary approval from the concerned authority. 5. At the outset, Mr. She claims that the interview for this vacant post will be held after getting necessary approval from the concerned authority. 5. At the outset, Mr. B.K. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Social Welfare Department, submits that the petitioner did not submit any supporting document on her permanent residency of the Centre in question at the time of submitting her application for the post and she cannot, therefore, seriously claim that she is qualified for the post. He, therefore, submits that this deficiency is itself sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of lack of locus standi. On the other hand, Mr. B. Goswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, maintains that the petitioner is local candidate and is a resident of the Anganwadi Centre in question. In order to verify the claim and counter-claim of the parties, the original interview file was requisitioned from the learned Standing Counsel, who has now placed the same before me. 6. On perusal of the file so produced, there is some force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel. The selection proceeding dated 22.2.2011 indicates that the petitioner was found to be an outsider as there were no supporting documents submitted by her to substantiate her claim of residency at the Anganwadi Centre in question: the document/certificate submitted by the petitioner, which is found in the file, is the certificate of residency issued by the Gaonburah bearing dated 6.1.2013 i.e. the date after the interview was held. However, this begets the further question: how this certificate of 6.1.2013 came into the custody of the respondent No. 4 when she claimed that the interview was conducted by her/Selection Committee on 22.2.2011? Moreover, if the private respondent is admittedly not even a resident of the Anganwadi Centre in question, why should she be appointed by overlooking the case of the petitioner? In my opinion, there is more than meets the eye in the selection process. This mystery must be solved in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. On comparative reading of the pleadings of the parties as well as the record of the selection proceeding, it cannot be disputed that but for want of residency proof, the petitioner is otherwise entitled to be appointed for the post of Anganwadi helper. This mystery must be solved in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. On comparative reading of the pleadings of the parties as well as the record of the selection proceeding, it cannot be disputed that but for want of residency proof, the petitioner is otherwise entitled to be appointed for the post of Anganwadi helper. The off-shoot of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition stands disposed of by directing the respondent No. 3 to hold an inquiry as to whether the petitioner is a bona fide resident of No. 2 Chubri (Centre No. 10) under No. 4 Bhujmari village Anganwadi Centre and if she is found to be so, the respondent No. 4 shall engage her as Anganwadi Helper for the Centre in question. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Pending completion of the inquiry, no fresh interview for the post shall be held by the respondent No. 4. In the meantime, the service of the respondent No. 7 shall not be extended after the expiry of the latest extended period even by way of stop-gap arrangement. Only local and eligible candidate shall be appointed even for temporary arrangement. No costs.