Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 575 (GAU)

Mofida Khatun v. State of Assam & 5 Ors.

2016-06-21

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
1. Heard Mr. I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Social Welfare Department. Although the respondent No. 6 is represented by counsels, there is none to represent the said respondent today. However, on record, there is an affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the said respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner is basically aggrieved of the Office Order dated 24.09.2013 whereby the respondent No. 6, who is employed as Anganwadi Worker at Kharballi-(D) Anganwadi Centre was brought to No. 38, Kharballi-(B) Anganwadi Centre in which the petitioner is employed as Anganwadi Helper. The ground of challenge is that by bringing in the respondent No. 6 to Kharballi-(B) Anganwadi Centre, the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker came to be filled-up, thereby precluding the scope of promotion of the petitioner to the said post of Anganwadi Worker. 3. Mr. Ahmed refers to the Notification dated 04.03.2013 issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Social Welfare Department which lays down the guidelines for making promotion from the post of Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker. The basic criteria laid down in the said Notification is that an Anganwadi Helper must be in continuous service for a period of 10 years and above, Class IX pass and below 45 years of age at the time of consideration of the case for promotion. The said promotion is also required to be confined within the Anganwadi Centre concerned of the same Revenue Village. Apparently, there was a vacant post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre No. 38, Kharballi-(B), Kalgachia under the Rupshi ICDS Project. The transfer of the respondent No. 6 by the impugned Order dated 24.09.2013 had virtually taken away any scope for promotion of the petitioner to the said vacant post of Anganwadi Worker. 4. The Social Welfare Department have filed its affidavit-in-opposition. The stand of the respondent is that one of the conditions for being eligible for promotion is that the candidate must be below 45 years of age. 4. The Social Welfare Department have filed its affidavit-in-opposition. The stand of the respondent is that one of the conditions for being eligible for promotion is that the candidate must be below 45 years of age. In the instant case, however at the time of interview for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker it was found that there was a discrepancy with regard to the age of the petitioner, in that, the age recorded in the HSLC Certificate did not conform to the age recorded in the Class VIII pass Certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of the interview. To overcome this anomaly, the petitioner was also advised to make application for correction of her date of birth. On a pointed query, the counsel for the writ petitioner is unable to say as to whether such application has been made before the competent authority for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. 5. Apparently, one of the essential ingredients for being eligible for promotion as per the Notification dated 04.03.2013 is that the candidate, must not be above 45 years of age. It is not clear, as on date, as to the actual age of the petitioner, which means there is no clear picture whether the petitioner fulfils the criteria laid down in the aforesaid Notification date 04.03.2013. In the absence of the required information and/or a clear picture as regards the age of the petitioner, the said Notification dated 04.03.2013 cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. 6. I find no reason to interfere with the Order dated 24.09.2013 passed in favour of the respondent No. 6. The inevitable conclusion is that this writ petition must fail. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.