Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 891 (GAU)

Kalpana Roy v. State of Assam

2017-07-11

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M.R Adhikary, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate and Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for the BTC. 2. The petitioners herein, who have the qualification of appearing in the HSLC examination, but having not passed the same, had been appointed as Anganwadi Helpers under the Kokrajhar ICDS project. The petitioners have been working as Anganwadi Helpers in their respective centers since 10.09.1997 when they were so appointed. It is stated that during their service tenure as Anganwadi Helpers, the petitioners have rendered satisfactory service and there is no complaint from any quarter against the services rendered by them. 3. In the year 2008, a process was undertaken to fill up certain vacant posts of Anganwadi Worker in different centers within the jurisdiction of the Kokrajhar ICDS project. The petitioners along with others had participated in the said selection process. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 respectively as Anganwadi Workers. The petitioners raised a claim that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not residents within the jurisdictional area of the Anganwadi Center against which they were appointed. It is stated that the respondent No. 7 Ms. Sushree Roy earlier worked as Anganwadi Helper in the Dhubri district, whereas the respondent No.8 Ms. Bhanu Das had no occasion to work as Anganwadi Helper in Tilapara center. Apart from the aforesaid statement, no further particulars had been provided by the writ petitioners as to why the writ petitioners are of the view that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not residents within the jurisdictional area of the concerned Anganwadi Center to which they were appointed. 5. Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for BTC on the other hand submits that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were appointed by following the procedure of due selection and as such, no infirmity can be subscribed . 6. Mr. M.R Adhikary, learned State Counsel also by relying an affidavit in opposition of the respondent No.4 being the Child Development Project Officer of Kokrajhar IDCS project dated 14.05.2009, submits that in the comparative merit in the selection process, the merit position of the respondent Nos. 6. Mr. M.R Adhikary, learned State Counsel also by relying an affidavit in opposition of the respondent No.4 being the Child Development Project Officer of Kokrajhar IDCS project dated 14.05.2009, submits that in the comparative merit in the selection process, the merit position of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were found to be superior than that of the petitioners and therefore, from the said point of view also no infirmity can be subscribed to the appointment of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 7. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the appointments of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as Anganwadi Workers of their respective Anganwadi Centers. 8. But at the same time, Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner having been appointed as Anganwadi Helper in the year 1997, have already attained the qualifying service of 21 years as Anganwadi Worker and therefore, they have also accrued a legal right to be considered for being promoted as Anganwadi Workers. 9. Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for BTC on the other hand agrees to the said submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, but subject to the condition that their exists such a policy of the respondent authorities as regards promotion from Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker and if such policy exists and if the petitioners have met the required qualifying service, the respondent authorities would definitely consider the case of the petitioners for such promotion. 10. In view of such submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent No.6 being the Joint Director of ICDS, Kokrajhar, BTC shall give a due consideration to the claim of the petitioners for being promoted as Anganwadi Workers from their present post of Anganwadi Helper. In the event, the Joint Director is of the view that such policy is available and the petitioners do meet the required qualifying period prescribed therein, an appropriate consideration shall be made as to whether the petitioners can be promoted to the post of Anganwadi Workers. 11. The aforesaid exercise of considering as to whether the petitioners can be promoted as Anganwadi Workers shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The aforesaid exercise of considering as to whether the petitioners can be promoted as Anganwadi Workers shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.