Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1052 (GAU)

SABITA BARMAN v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-11-25

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
Heard Mr. G.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 6676/2016 as well as Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) 4457/2016. The respondents are represented by Ms. B.D. Sarma, Advocate. As both the cases are inter-related, the same are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts to be noticed is that a selection process was initiated for engagement of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper under the Barkhetri ICDS Project. The present case pertains to two such Centres i.e. No. 73 Damdama Anganwadi Centre for engagement of Anganwadi Worker and No. 101 Mathauri Chupa Anganwadi Centre for engagement of Anganwadi Helper. 3. Selection made pursuant to the Advertisement dated 07.09.2009 was put to challenge by unsuccessful candidates in WP(C) 5094/2012. However, on 06.08.2013 the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioners in WP(C) 4457/2016 came to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper respectively in respective Centres by orders of like date i.e. 26.04.2013. Such appointment was put to challenge by the writ petitioners in WP(C) 6676/2016 along with others in the case registered as WP(C) 5539/2013. Order rendered by this Court on 01.11.2013 directed the petitioners therein to make effective representation before the Director of Social Welfare, Assam together with all necessary documents in proof that the private respondents therein do not belong to the Centres in question. A further direction was made to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to dispose of the representation that may be filed within 2(two) months by affording opportunity of hearing to the private respondents therein by way of a speaking order. 4. In terms thereof, hearing was fixed on 10.04.2015 and an Order dated 10.03.2016 came to be passed by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam after hearing the parties concerned. The said Order dated 10.03.2016 took into consideration the findings of the Enquiry Report of the District Social Welfare Officer & Child Development Project Officer as well as other relevant records, which enquiry was directed to be conducted pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.11.2013 in WP(C) 5539/2013. The findings recorded in the Order dated 10.03.2016 in respect of No. 73 Damdama Anganwadi Centre is that Rashida Begum, who is the petitioner no. 1 in WP(C) 4457/2016, is a resident of Village Damdama Pathar whereas Sabita Barman, who is the petitioner no. The findings recorded in the Order dated 10.03.2016 in respect of No. 73 Damdama Anganwadi Centre is that Rashida Begum, who is the petitioner no. 1 in WP(C) 4457/2016, is a resident of Village Damdama Pathar whereas Sabita Barman, who is the petitioner no. 1 in WP(C) 6676/2016, is a resident of Damdama Village. Finding is also recorded that the concerned Anganwadi Centre is located in Village Damdama. On such findings it was held that Rashida Begum is not the resident within the concerned Anganwadi Centre area. Accordingly a direction was made to the Child Development Project Officer, Barkhetri ICDS Project to remove Rashida Begum from her engagement as Anganwadi Worker in No. 73 Damdama Anganwadi Centre. Further direction was made to the Child Development Project Officer to place the matter before the Project Level Selection Committee and to select the next suitable candidate from amongst the candidates who appeared in the interview. A finding is also recorded that Sabita Barman had secured second position in the interview. In so far as Marjina Begum, who is the petitioner no. 2 in WP(C) 4457/2016 is concerned the findings recorded in respect of No. 101 Loharkatha Mathauri Chupa Anganwadi Centre is that Loharkatha Village is divided into two parts i.e. Part-I and Part-II and the concerned Anganwadi Centre is located in Part-II. It was found that the residence of Marjina Begum is on the North side of Part-I and her name is not listed in the Survey Register of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. In so far as Malati Khatun, who is the petitioner no. 2 in WP(C) 6676/2016 is concerned, findings recorded is that she is a resident of Part-II area of Loharkatha Village where the concerned Anganwadi Centre is located. Having regard to the findings, a direction was issued to the Child Development Project Officer to remove Marjina Begum from her engagement as Anganwadi Helper from No. 101 Loharkatha Mathauri Chupa Anganwadi Centre and to place the matter before the Project Level Selection Committee for selection of the next suitable candidate from amongst the candidate who appeared in the interview. Finding was also recorded that Malati Khatun had secured second position in the interview. 5. Consequential orders of removing Rashida Begum and Marjina Begum was issued vide Officer Order dated 04.07.2016. Finding was also recorded that Malati Khatun had secured second position in the interview. 5. Consequential orders of removing Rashida Begum and Marjina Begum was issued vide Officer Order dated 04.07.2016. At this stage it would be essential to notice that the order of the Director of Social Welfare dated 10.03.2016 is not put to challenge in WP(C) 4457/2016, save and except, the consequential Office Order dated 04.07.2016. 6. The case laid out by the petitioners in WP(C) 6676/2016 is that consequent upon the cancellation/removal of the engagement of the petitioners in WP(C) 4457/2016 and having regard to the fact that they were placed in the second position in terms of merit, they are legitimately entitled to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper in the respective Anganwadi Centres. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on records. The Order dated 10.03.2016 recording the findings of the residential status of the petitioners in both the cases was done pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.11.2013 in WP(C) 5539/2013. The order of the Director of Social Welfare dated 10.03.2016 records that in pursuance of the Court’s order, the District Social Welfare Officer, Nalbari was asked to enquire into the matter and to furnish report. The said enquiry report was submitted on 14.03.2015 and all the petitioners along with the Child Development Project Officer were asked to attend hearing on 10.04.2015. The petitioners were heard and the report of the District Social Welfare Officer stood for consideration together with other relevant records. The Order dated 10.03.2016 of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam provides categorical finding on the residential status of all the 4 writ petitioners. The same were also based on the Field Report submitted by the District Social Welfare Officer, Nalbari. In the absence of any contemporary contrary reports, there is nothing to disbelieve the findings recorded by the Director of Social Welfare in his Order dated 10.03.2016. In this respect, a submission made by the counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) 4457/2016 needs to be noticed. Mr. I. Ahmed submits that there is a report of the Deputy Commissioner to the extent that there was no earmarked centre area under Barkhetri ICDS Project. In this respect, a submission made by the counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) 4457/2016 needs to be noticed. Mr. I. Ahmed submits that there is a report of the Deputy Commissioner to the extent that there was no earmarked centre area under Barkhetri ICDS Project. This submission is made to project that when the centre area is not earmarked, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam could not have categorically found that the residence of Rashida Begum and Marjina Begum were outside the local limits of the Anganwadi Centres concerned. This submission is not taken on board, primarily because the report of the Deputy Commissioner on which Mr. I Ahmed places reliance is not part of the records. Further, the findings recorded by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam is basically on field reports and the same had also been recorded after hearing all the parties concerned. In that view of the matter the submission made by Mr. Ahmed fails. 8. Coming back to the main issue and as alluded to above, there is nothing to disbelieve the findings recorded in the order dated 10.03.2016. In that view of the matter the petitioners in WP(C) 4457/2016 has not been able to make out a case warranting interference of this Court to the Office Order dated 04.07.2016. To reiterate, the parent Order dated 10.03.2016 is not under challenge in the said writ petition. 9. In so far as the petitioners in WP(C) 6676/2016 are concerned and having regard to their merit position in the Select List, they cannot be denied engagement of service as Anganwadi Worker in No. 73 Damdama Anganwadi Centre and as Anganwadi Helper in No. 101 Loharkatha Mathauri Chupa Anganwadi Centre respectively. In that view of the matter, a direction is issued to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to take immediate steps for placing the matter with regard to the engagement of the petitioners i.e. Sabita Barman and Malati Khatun before the Project Level Selection Committee. Thereafter, necessary orders be passed in accordance with law. Let the required exercise, as directed to be taken by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam be completed within a period of 4(four) weeks from today. 10. Having regard to the above, WP(C) 6676/2016 stands allowed and WP(C) 4457/2016 stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.