Issue raised in all the (3) three writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Matter relates to appointment of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi centers under Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project under the jurisdiction of Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). 3. The cases were heard on 02-12-2014 and 09-12-2014 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is being delivered in the open Court. 4. Heard Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. BM Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 2914/2010 and 3128/2010 and Mr. M Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.2477/2010. Also heard Ms. T Barman, learned Standing counsel, Social Welfare Department and Mr. AK Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC). 5. At the outset it would be apposite to briefly narrate the facts of each case. WP(C) NO.2477/2010 6. Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project had issued an advertisement on 10-09-2009 for selection and appointment of 52 numbers of Anganwadi Worker and 52 numbers of Anganwadi Helper in different Anganwadi centers under the Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project including 8 Anganwadi centers which fall within the jurisdiction of BTC. Petitioners applied pursuant to the said advertisement for both Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper against the 8 Anganwadi centers under BTC which are situated in Baksa district. Interview was held on 12-10-2009 and 13-10-2009. 7. BTC had framed guidelines for selection of candidates for appointment as Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in BTC area which were notified on 20-09-2009. Interview was conducted as per such guidelines. After selection process was over, separate select lists were prepared, one select list for the Anganwadi centers under general area and another select list for the 8 Anganwadi centers under BTC area. Thereafter, the select list for BTC area was forwarded to the BTC authority for approval. The approval was granted on 09-03-2010. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 were selected as Anganwadi Worker whereas petitioner Nos. 9 to 16 were selected as Anganwadi Helper against the 8 Anganwadi centers falling within the BTC area. 8. Notwithstanding such selection and approval by the BTC authority, petitioners were not appointed. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 9. This writ petition was earlier disposed of on 10-12-2010 by directing the respondents to ensure appointment of the petitioners. 9 to 16 were selected as Anganwadi Helper against the 8 Anganwadi centers falling within the BTC area. 8. Notwithstanding such selection and approval by the BTC authority, petitioners were not appointed. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 9. This writ petition was earlier disposed of on 10-12-2010 by directing the respondents to ensure appointment of the petitioners. On appeal filed by other persons who also claimed to be selected candidates, the Division Bench in WA No.10/2011 set-aside the order dated 10-12-2010 and directed hearing of the case alongwith the connected matters. Accordingly, this case was tagged with the other two connected matters. WP(C) NO.2914/2010 10. In this case also the 5 petitioners had responded to the advertisement dated 10-09-2009 issued by the CDPO, Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project for appointment as Anganwadi Helper in those Anganwadi centers situated in Baksa district under BTC. It is stated that petitioners had appeared in the interview whereafter they came to know that they were selected but petitioners were not appointed. When they made query about their appointment, they were informed that since their Anganwadi centers are within the BTC area, the BTC authorities would have to prepare a separate select list wherefrom the appointments would be made. 11. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to appoint the petitioners as Anganwadi Helper under Kamalpur ICDS Rangia ICDS Project area. WP(C) NO.3128/2010 12. 5 (five) petitioners have joined together and have filed the present petition. They had also submitted application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the advertisement dated 10-09-2009 issued by the CDPO, Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project. Petitioners appeared in the interview and later on they could come to know that they were selected. However, they were not appointed. Petitioners were told that their candidatures were against Anganwadi centers in BTC area and therefore, a separate select list would have to be prepared by the BTC authority. 13. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi centers under Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project against which they were selected. 14. In all the three (3) writ petitions, Shri Debajit Bora, the then CDPO, Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project has filed identical affidavits. 13. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi centers under Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project against which they were selected. 14. In all the three (3) writ petitions, Shri Debajit Bora, the then CDPO, Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project has filed identical affidavits. Stand taken in the affidavits is that approved list dated 09-03-2010 returned by the BTC authority did not tally with the merit list prepared by the Government notified selection committee. Several discrepancies were noticed. Therefore, he could not take any follow up action based on the approved list of BTC. Engagement or appointment of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in the 8 numbers of Anganwadi center in BTC area have been withheld in view of the discrepancies in the approved list of the BTC. 15. In the other (2) two cases, i.e., in WP(C) Nos. 2914/2010 and 3128/2010, Shri Manjeet Das who is presently serving as CDPO, Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project, has filed affidavit. In his affidavit he has stated that Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project covers both BTC area and non BTC area. The selection and appointment of candidates for Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper are for both the areas. It is stated that the then CDPO Shri Debajit Bora had unilaterally prepared a select list of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in respect of the Anganwadi centers falling within the BTC area without the approval of the BTC authority. As per the Memorandum of Settlement, 2003, BTC has the power to make appointment in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in the Government departments, including in the Social Welfare Department. It is stated that Joint Secretary of BTC on 13-01-2010 had requested the then CDPO to attend his office regarding final approval of the select list but the then CDPO did not attend the said meeting; instead he unilaterally prepared a separate select list for the 8 Anganwadi centers under the BTC area which was not approved by the BTC authority. 16. On 18-09-2013 this Court noted that the stand of the CDPO and that of the BTC authority were not very clear. Accordingly, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam was directed to file an affidavit to place the correct position before the Court. 16. On 18-09-2013 this Court noted that the stand of the CDPO and that of the BTC authority were not very clear. Accordingly, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam was directed to file an affidavit to place the correct position before the Court. Order dated 18-09-2013 reads as under: “The matter pertains to selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in different centers falling under the BTAD area. While according to the CDPO, the list that was prepared by the Selection Committee is the valid select list, according to the BTC authority the said list having been prepared without consulting the BTC authority, cannot be acted upon and the list that has been sent by the BTC authority should be implemented. The stand of the CDPO and the BTC authority is not very clear. In view of the above, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam is directed to file a counter affidavit depicting the correct position and what is required to be done in the matter.” 17. In terms of the order dated 18-09-2013, Shri Dilip Barthakur, Director of Social Welfare, Assam (respondent No.2) has filed an affidavit. He has stated that the Social Welfare Department under BTC had issued notification dated 02-09-2009 constituting a selection committee for selection of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper under the ICDS Projects within the BTC area. For such selection, the BTC authority had nominated an additional member to take part in the interview alongwith selection committee constituted by the Government of Assam vide notification dated 30-01-2009. The BTC authority had clarified that the selection committee constituted by the Government of Assam vide the aforesaid notification dated 30-01-2009 would be competent to conduct selection for BTC area with the addition of the nominated member of BTC. Out of the 75 sanctioned Anganwadi centers under Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project, 8 numbers of Anganwadi center fall within the BTC area. The BTC had nominated Shri Maheshar Basumatary, executive member of Goreshwar constituency as the additional member in the selection committee. Accordingly, the interview for those 8 Anganwadi centers were conducted by the selection committee with the additional member Shri Maheshwar Basumatary. Record shows that the said nominated member had attended the selection proceedings and had signed the comparative statement. The BTC had nominated Shri Maheshar Basumatary, executive member of Goreshwar constituency as the additional member in the selection committee. Accordingly, the interview for those 8 Anganwadi centers were conducted by the selection committee with the additional member Shri Maheshwar Basumatary. Record shows that the said nominated member had attended the selection proceedings and had signed the comparative statement. However, Joint Secretary to the BTC had raised objection that the select list so prepared did not have the endorsement from all the members except that of the Chairman and Member Secretary. But, according to the CDPO, the interview was conducted in presence of the BTC nominated member. The merit list was prepared in the final selection committee meeting held on 27-11-2009 and the same was submitted to the BTC authority for approval. BTC authority forwarded the list of approved candidates on 09-03-2010. The Director noticed the following anomalies in the list returned by the BTC authority. “For the post of Anganwadi Worker (i) At Sri Lanka Club AWC, the BTC authority approved Smti Manjuwara Begum. As per the Comparative Statement, she secured only 52.72 marks, whether another candidate Smti Nomita Kalita stood securing 80.6 marks. (ii) At Dhalkuchi Anath Asram AWC, the BTC authority approved the name of one Smti Lakhmi Boro, and as per the Comparative Statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the concerned AWC. (iii) At Dhalkuchi Moinamoti AWC, the BTC authority approved Smti. Minu Das. As per the Comparative Statement she secured 43.6 marks and another candidate Smti. Reeva Basumatary stood first in the interview securing 50.5 marks. (iv) At Kekerkuchi AWC, one Smti Reshmi Boro was approved by the BTC, but as per the record of Comparative Statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the concerned AWC. (v) At Dwarkuchi Major Suburi Gopal mandir AWC, one Smti Anju Rani Das approved by the BTC, as per the record of Comparative statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the concerned AWC. For the post of Anganwadi Helper (i) At Dhalkuchi Anath ashram AWC one Smti Lily Ramchary was approved by the BTC, but as per the record of Comparative Statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the concerned AWC. (ii) At Dhalkuchi Moinemoti AWC, the BTC authority approved Smti Monomoti Ramchiary who secured 123 marks in the interview. For the post of Anganwadi Helper (i) At Dhalkuchi Anath ashram AWC one Smti Lily Ramchary was approved by the BTC, but as per the record of Comparative Statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the concerned AWC. (ii) At Dhalkuchi Moinemoti AWC, the BTC authority approved Smti Monomoti Ramchiary who secured 123 marks in the interview. As per the record of Comparative Statement another candidate Smti Lily Ramchiary topped the interview with 169 marks. (iii) At Kekerkuchi AWC one Smti Pranita Basumatary was approved by the BTC, but as per the record of Comparative statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the said AWC. (iv) At Dwarkuchi Major Chuburi Gopal Mandir AWC one Smti Madhabi Boro was approved by the BTC, but as per the record of Comparative Statement no such candidate appeared in the interview against the AWC.” 18. In the above circumstances, the Director has opined that the BTC authority should have consulted with the comparative statement prepared by the selection committee prior to according approval. The approved list contains names of candidates who had either had secured lesser marks in the interview or who did not even appear in the interview. 19. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 2194/2010 and 3128/2010 submits that affidavit of the Director has made the position abundantly clear. The selection conducted by the Social Welfare Department had the approval of the BTC authorities and in fact the nominated member of BTC was a part of the selection committee which conducted the selection in respect of the Anganwadi centers under the BTC area. There is no infirmity or anomaly in the selection conducted and therefore, the selected candidates should be offered appointment. 20. Submission made by the learned senior counsel Mr. Sahewalla finds support from learned Standing counsel of the Social Welfare Department. She submits that selection was conducted strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of merit. She further submits that the select list forwarded by the Social Welfare Department to the BTC was unilaterally changed by the BTC authority by inserting names of candidates who had either secured lesser marks in the selection or who did not even appear in the selection. This approach of the BTC authority is totally unacceptable and has caused undue harassment and hardship to the selected candidates. This approach of the BTC authority is totally unacceptable and has caused undue harassment and hardship to the selected candidates. It was the BTC authority who had interfered with the select list in an unauthorized manner. She therefore, submits that the select list prepared by the CDPO should be accepted and the same should be given effect to. 21. On the other hand, Mr. Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.2477/2010 submits that in view of the discordant note as noticed above it would not be justified to insist on giving effect to either of the lists, one prepared by the CDPO and the other list approved by the BTC. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if fresh selection is directed. 22. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, BTC submits that following the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 2003 which led to creation of BTC under the sixth schedule, it is the BTC which has the power to make appointments in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in the Social Welfare Department within the BTC area. The selection committee has to be constituted by the BTC. As per the stand taken by the Social Welfare Department, the selection committee was constituted by the State of Assam and in respect of the selection to the Anganwadi centers falling within the BTC area, one executive member of BTC was co-opted as nominated member. This would not be permissible, he submits. He further submits on the basis of his instruction that in the selection conducted by the State authority, candidates belonging to BTC area could not participate whereas in the selection conducted by the BTC all the candidates who had participated in the earlier selection conducted by the State authority could not participate. He, therefore, made a submission that it would be in the interest of justice if fresh selection is directed. 23. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due and anxious consideration of the Court. 24. Holding of selection for the purpose of public recruitment is a solemn function vested in the State. Selection is undertaken to shortlist the suitable candidates who in the assessment of the selection committee are suitable for appointment. Sanctity is attached to the selection process. If the selection process is unduly interfered with or if there is any unwarranted interference in the selection process, it will breach such sanctity. Selection is undertaken to shortlist the suitable candidates who in the assessment of the selection committee are suitable for appointment. Sanctity is attached to the selection process. If the selection process is unduly interfered with or if there is any unwarranted interference in the selection process, it will breach such sanctity. Coming to the facts of the present controversy, while earlier CDPO (Sri Debajit Bora) in his affidavit has stated that the select list was prepared in order of merit following a selection process in which a nominated member of BTC participated, in the later affidavit filed by the subsequent CDPO (Shri Manjeet Das), the stand taken is that Shri Debajit Bora had prepared the select list unilaterally without consultation and approval of the BTC authority. Thus contradictory stand has been taken by the two (2) CDPOs. On the other hand, the Director in his affidavit has clearly pointed out several anomalies committed by the BTC authority while approving the select list which have already been noticed above. 25. In such a situation, it becomes difficult for the Court to prefer one select list over the other though what has happened in this case is really unfortunate and should not have happened at all. A large number of candidates had participated in the selection with the hope and expectation that they would be selected and appointed either as Anganwadi Worker or as Anganwadi Helper and get whatever amount of honorarium fixed for them. But their hopes and expectations have been belied for no fault of theirs. In this process, 4/5 years have gone by. 26. While Mr. Bhuyan may be right in contending that in respect of recruitment to Grade-III or Grade-IV posts within the BTC area it is the BTC authority which is competent to hold the selection and therefore, the selection committee should be constituted by the BTC authority, the same may not be practicable where common recruitment is made for both BTC and non BTC areas as in the present case. As stated by the respondents, the Kamalpur-Rangia ICDS Project contains 75 Anganwadi centers out of which 8 Anganwadi centers fall within the BTC area. It was a common selection for all the Anganwadi centers falling within the Kamalpur-Rangia ICDS Project. In such a case it may not be possible or practicable to bifurcate the selection process between the two areas. As stated by the respondents, the Kamalpur-Rangia ICDS Project contains 75 Anganwadi centers out of which 8 Anganwadi centers fall within the BTC area. It was a common selection for all the Anganwadi centers falling within the Kamalpur-Rangia ICDS Project. In such a case it may not be possible or practicable to bifurcate the selection process between the two areas. In such a situation, the course of action adopted by the Social Welfare Department by co-opting a nominated member of BTC as member of the selection committee while conducting selection for the Anganwadi centers under the BTC area appears to be reasonable and pragmatic. 27. Having regard to the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to issue any positive direction for appointment of the petitioners in any of the writ petitions as Aangwandi Worker or Anganwadi Helper. 28. Director of Social Welfare, Assam may take up the matter regarding appointment of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in Kamalpur Rangia ICDS Project in respect of 8 Anganwadi centers under the BTC area in consultation with the BTC authorities and take a final decision in this regard within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 29. This disposes of all the three writ petitions. No costs.