Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 23 (GAU)

MONJUARA BEGUM v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-01-07

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, C.J. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. B. Sarma, Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2758 of 2002 against the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by learned Single Judge under Rule 2(3) of Chapter-VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, (as His Lordship then was), disposed of the writ petition by giving the following directions :- “The facts stated above make it clear that while the petitioners contend the Respondent Nos.7 to 24 to be ineligible for selection and appointment, the Respondent Nos.7 to 24 content otherwise. The official version is not available as the records pertaining to the selections are presently not available in the circumstances already noted. In such circumstances, it is not possible on the part of the Court to come to any firm conclusion as to whether the version put forward by the writ petitioners or the Respondent Nos.7 to 24 is correct. The only way in which the matter can be reconciled and the grievances of the petitioners and the counter claims of the Respondent Nos.7 to 24 can be answered is by directing an enquiry to be made with regard to the eligibility of the Respondent Nos.7 to 24 to the appointments in question. The said enquiry will be in terms of the criteria for appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers as may have been in force at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, depending upon the outcome of the enquiry, the services of such of the Respondents, who are found to be eligible shall be retained and the services of such of the Respondents who are found to be ineligible shall be dispensed with. As the records pertaining to the selections are apparently not in existence, the Court is unable to issue any positive direction for examination and consideration of the cases of the petitioners for appointment.” The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction given by the learned Single Judge are factually and legally sustainable in the facts of this case or not ? At the outset, we may notice that the appellants till date did not take any steps despite affording them enough opportunities to get the notices served on respondents No.10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 24. At the outset, we may notice that the appellants till date did not take any steps despite affording them enough opportunities to get the notices served on respondents No.10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 24. We are not inclined to grant any further time to the appellants to get the notices served on the above mentioned respondents as we do not wish to keep the appeal pending any further only due to this default on the part of the appellants. Without burdening our order by narrating more facts, which we do not consider it necessary and having perused the records of the case and taking into account the short controversy involved we are inclined to dismiss the appeal on merits for more than one reasons. In the first place, the learned Single Judge has only given direction and it goes in favour of the petitioners/ appellants rather than against them. Secondly, as stated above, all that the learned Single Judge has done is to direct the State authorities to hold an enquiry and verify who are found eligible and who are not and those found eligible are allowed to be retained in service, whereas those not found eligible, their services are directed to be dispensed with. In a situation like the one arising in the case, in our opinion we do not find any ground to interfere in such directions because those who are found aggrieved consequent upon their non-selection may be on any ground always would be at liberty to challenge the decision of State once taken pursuant to the enquiry and in such circumstances, their grievance can then always be adjudicated in a properly instituted proceedings in accordance with law. We, accordingly, find no merit in the appeal which fails and is dismissed not only for non-compliance of the interim orders passed by this Court from time to time, but also on merits. No cost.