Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 998 (GAU)

Sabita Begum v. State of Assam

2017-07-27

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby, he has dismissed appellant's WP(C) No. 678/2016. 2. Respondent No. 3 - Child Development Project Officer published an advertisement inviting applications from the candidates who were interested to provide voluntary service as Anganwadi Worker/Helper in the different centres under the concerned Child Development Project Officer. Clause 2 of the advertisement clearly provided that the candidate must be a permanent resident of revenue village where the centre is located. In response to the advertisement, the appellant submitted her application and thereafter she was also interviewed. In the select list prepared and published by the Respondent No. 3 even her name appeared at Sl. No. 13 showing her as selected candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Solmari Bhaira Napara Anganwadi Centre. But, when it came to the stage of issuance of appointment order, her name did not find place and instead the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was made. Aggrieved, she filed WP(C) No. 678/2016. 3. Before the learned Single Judge appointment of Respondent No. 4 was defended on the ground that she had made a written complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari alleging that appellant was not a resident of the locality where the Centre, in question, is located and therefore, she was not entitled to be appointed. And pursuant to the said complaint, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari made an enquiry. Accordingly, report was called from the Circle Officer, Paschim Nalbari as well as the Child Development Project Officer, Paschim Nalbari and in both the reports it was indicated that appellant was a resident of another locality and it was respondent No. 4 who was a local resident of that area. Then on the basis of these reports, the Additional Deputy Commissioner vide communication dated 5.12.2015 instructed Respondent No. 2 - Director, Social Welfare, Assam to appoint a local candidate in order to avoid further litigation in the matter. Respondent No. 2, in turn, acting on the advice, vide order dated 8.1.2016 directed Respondent No. 3 to cancel the selection of appellant and include the name of Respondent No. 4 as the selected candidate. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 issued an appointment order dated 13.1.2016 in favour of Respondent No. 4. 4. Respondent No. 2, in turn, acting on the advice, vide order dated 8.1.2016 directed Respondent No. 3 to cancel the selection of appellant and include the name of Respondent No. 4 as the selected candidate. Consequently, Respondent No. 3 issued an appointment order dated 13.1.2016 in favour of Respondent No. 4. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, upheld the decision of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appoint Respondent No. 4 and by the impugned order dismissed the appellant's writ petition. It is in this background, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard the respective counsel for the parties and are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. As mentioned above, the condition stipulated in the advertisement was that the candidate must be a resident of revenue village where the Centre in question is located. Meaning thereby if the candidate is a resident of the revenue village where the Centre is located she is entitled for appointment. It was certainly not necessary that the candidate should be a resident of the locality where the Centre is located in the village. Neither the report of Circle Officer nor the report of Child Development Project Officer says that appellant is not a resident of revenue village Solmari where the Centre is located. In fact, the report dated 8.9.2015 of Kanangoo confirms that the appellant is very much a resident of village Solmari where the Centre, in question, is located. Apparently, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 wrongly interpreted the condition of advertisement that candidate should be a resident of locality where the Centre is situated in the village. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with a direction that appellant be allowed to function as Anganwadi Worker in Solmari Bhaira Napara Anganwadi Centre.