Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 263 (GAU)

Anjana Das v. State of Assam

2016-04-04

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. Heard on admission. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 27.4.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed Respondent’s WP (C) No. 731/2014 and set aside appellant’s appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker. Advertisement dated 15.7.2013 was issued by the Child Development Project Officer (in short “CDPO”), Salchapara ICDS Project for engagement of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper. Along with other candidates, appellant and respondent No.5 also participated in the selection process for the post of Anganwadi Worker. The appellant had applied as an OBC candidate. Record reveals that respondent No. 5 has passed High School Leaving Certificate examination (HSLC) from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA), whereas appellant has passed only Class-IX. And as per eligibility criteria 1(v) appended to the advertisement, candidate must be HSLC/HMLC examination passed from the Board of Secondary Education (SEBA), Assam or any other equivalent examination from a recognized Board of the Government of Assam. In the absence of such qualified candidates, educational qualification could be relaxed upto Class-VIII passed. Since the appellant though having minimum qualification was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker, respondent No.5 challenged the same. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has held that since appellant is only Class-IX passed, her selection and appointment on the post of Anganwadi Worker was illegal. Learned Single Judge has also disagreed with the defence of State that appellant was eligible under eligibility criteria 1(xiii). Admittedly, appellant is only Class-IX passed and respondent No.5 is HSLC passed. Therefore, the above referred provision of relaxation of educational qualification will not be attracted in the present case. Also eligibility criteria 1(xiii) provides that village/locality of the concerned Anganwadi Centre comprises of more than 40% of Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) or Tea-Tribe population, selection of candidates should be made from amongst the said majority communities. The State has stated on affidavit that the Anganwadi Centre in question has almost 100% Tea-Tribe population. It is no where stated that appellant belongs to Tea Tribe majority community or Tea garden labour community. As already mentioned above, the appellant appeared as an OBC category candidate and not of Tea Garden labour community. The State in that case ought to have selected a candidate from amongst the tea garden labour community. It is no where stated that appellant belongs to Tea Tribe majority community or Tea garden labour community. As already mentioned above, the appellant appeared as an OBC category candidate and not of Tea Garden labour community. The State in that case ought to have selected a candidate from amongst the tea garden labour community. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.