Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1289 (GAU)

Musst. Saifun Nehar v. State of Assam

2015-10-06

K.SREEDHAR RAO, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P. K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2013, passed in WP(C) No, 5986/2012 (Miss. Tazmina Khatun vs. State of Assam) allowing the proceeding quashing the appointment of present appellant as being Anganwadi Worker, Saraijuria Borpanipar Anganwadi Centre as well as the judgment dated 24.05.2013 refusing to review the order dated 18.03.2013. 2. We have heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. H. G. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that one Tazmina Khatun, who was arraigned as one of the respondents in the present appeal, filed WP(C) No. 5986/2012 questioning the appointment of the present appellant as Anganwadi Worker in Saraijuria Borpanipar Anganwadi Centre under Raha ICDS Project in the district of Nagaon alleging that despite appellant not being a person residing within the aforesaid Anganwadi Centre, she was appointed illegally depriving the petitioner. 4. It has been stated that in that proceeding, the appellant was not made a party. This court on making necessary inquiry was of the opinion that the petitioner was deprived by aforesaid appointment although she was a resident of Anganwadi Centre aforesaid and although the appellant herein not being a resident of such an Anganwadi Centre, she was favoured with the appointment in question. 5. It may be stated that said petitioner has also approached this court by way of WP(C) No. 1401/2010 questioning the appointment of appellant herein as Anganwadi Worker of aforesaid Anganwadi Centre. This court in such a proceeding directed the Social Welfare Department, Assam to look in the grievances of the petitioner by making an inquiry and to pass appropriate order on the basis of such inquiry and the decision, taken on the basis of such inquiry, was ordered to be communicated to the appellant herein. 6. In terms of aforesaid direction, Director, Social Welfare Department caused an inquiry to be conducted and pass the order dated 10.05.2012, whereby and where-under it was found that contention of the petitioner was correct but despite the aforesaid finding, rendered by Child Development Project Officer, no action was taken on the basis of report dated 10.05.2012 for which she had approached this court once again by way of writ petition No. 1401/2010. 7. 7. This court by the order dated 13.12.2012 directed the Standing counsel to provide information as to why consequential order had not been passed following the order of the Director dated 10.05.2012. In due course, necessary information was obtained and furnished to the court. On the basis of such finding this court had passed the following order:- “Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned Standing counsel Social Welfare Department submits, that on instruction, that CDPO, Raha had placed the matter before the Project Level Selection Committee on 21.06.2012. The Committee, however, found difficult to implement the said order and decided to revert back the same to the Director. The committee has disputed the finding of the Director that the petitioner belongs to the area covered by the Anganwadi Centre. The relevant portion of the order of the Director of Social Welfare dated 10.05.2012 reads as under:-- “In pursuance of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court order dtd. 22.06.2011, passed in WP(C) NO. 1401.2010, the District Social Welfare Officer, Ngaon was requested to submit enquiry report vide letter No. DSW (LC) 104/2011/90, dtd. 06.09.2011. Accordingly, the District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaon submitted enquiry report vide letter NO. DSWO (N) 54/2010/131, dtd. 04.02.2012. On receipt of the report, date of hearing of the parties involved in the matter was fixed on 23.04.2012 at 3:00 p.m. and all concerned appeared accordingly. Perused the field verification report furnished by the District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaon. It has been observed that, 1) The resident of the respondent is not within the area of Saraijuria Borpanipar Anganwadi Centre, instead she belong to the area already covered by existing Paschim Saraijuria Angnawadi Centre and her name with other family members are found in the survey register of Paschim Saraijuria Anganwadi Centre 2) The residence of the petitioner is within the survey area of Saraijuria Borpanipar Anganwadi Centre and on verification her name was found in the survey register of the Anganwadi Centre. 3) As per Physical verification as well as verification records of District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaon, the petitioner is within the area of the Saraijuria Borpanipar Anganwadi Centre and the respondent is an outsider of the locality of the Anganwadi Centre. 3) As per Physical verification as well as verification records of District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaon, the petitioner is within the area of the Saraijuria Borpanipar Anganwadi Centre and the respondent is an outsider of the locality of the Anganwadi Centre. Verified the survey register and in the survey report, it is seen that the resident of the respondent No. 9 is not within the survey area i.e., Saraijuria Barpanipar Anganwadi Centre area under Raha ICDS Project, Dist.-Nagaon. As per certificate submitted by the local Gaonburah, the residence of Musstt. Saifun Nehar, respondent No. 9 is not within the concerned Anganwadi Centre i.e., Sariajuria Barpanipar Anganwadi Centre under Raha ICDS Project, Dist.- Nagaon. The petitioner contention has been found based on facts. As such her petition is held. In view of the above, the Child Development Project Officer, Raha ICDS Project, Dist.- Nagaon is hereby directed to place the matter before the Project Level Selection Committee for further necessary action as per existing guidelines.” As the Director has passed an order arriving at a finding of fact on the basis of field verification report furnished by the District Social Welfare Officer, Nagaon in terms of order of this court, it would not be open to the subordinate authorities of the Department to question the decision of the Director. It may be pointed out that from a perusal of the order dated 10.05.2012, it is seen that a copy of the said order was also forwarded to Musst. Saifun Nehar. No challenge has been made to the order dated 10.05.2012 till date.” 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred a review application seeking review of the order aforesaid stating that there are some errors apparent on the face of the record. But the learned Single Judge on hearing both the parties refused to recall the order. While refusing to review the order dated 18.03.2015, learned Single Judge on inquiry came to know that no challenge was made to the order dated 10.05.2012 rendered by the Director wherein it was held that petitioner despite being genuine resident of Saraijuria Barpanipar Anganwadi Centre was deprived of appointment to the post aforesaid and same was given to the appellant herein. 9. Questioning both the orders aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed stating that it is not true that the appellant is not the genuine resident of aforesaid Anganwadi Centre. 9. Questioning both the orders aforesaid, the present appeal has been filed stating that it is not true that the appellant is not the genuine resident of aforesaid Anganwadi Centre. The document, she annexed, unmistakably demonstrates that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant is not the resident of aforesaid Anganwadi Centre is not based on facts on record. She therefore, urges this court to quash both the orders aforesaid restoring her appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers in Saraijuria Barpanipar Anganwadi Centre. 10. This contention was opposed to by learned counsel for the respondent herein stating that there is unquestionable evidence on record to show that the appellant is not the genuine resident of aforesaid Anganwadi Centre rather she has forged the documents issued by the Gaon Burah to show that she is a genuine resident of said Anganwadi Centre. In that connection, our attention has been drawn to the Annexure 1 and 2 to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 6 and therefore, she urges this court not only to dismiss the appeal but also to direct the authority concerned to initiate necessary criminal proceeding against the appellant herein. 11. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of materials on record having regard to the judgment under challenge and found that the contention of the respondent No. 6 or for that matter that the appellant is not the resident of aforesaid Anganwadi Centre is correct and as such, she could not have claimed to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Saraijuria Barpanipar Anganwadi Centre. 12. Being so, learned Single Judge has rightly accepted the writ petition initiated by petitioner and rejects the review application filed by the appellant herein. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.