Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 448 (GAU)

Subala Boro v. Shadma Thakuria Das

2018-03-14

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.M. Baruah, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 07.09.2009, the writ petitioner as well as the review petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in the Mathurapuri (Ka) Anganwadi Centre, in the revenue village Koimari, under North Choygaon Gaon Panchayat. Without going into the question as to what was provided in the advertisement, as regards the residential status of the respective candidates, this court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate that the notification of the Social Welfare Department, prevailing at the relevant point of time when the advertisement was issued, be made the basis to determine the residential status of the respective parties. It is to be noted that at the relevant point of time, the notification dated 04.09.2009 was in force which prescribed that in order to be eligible. the respective candidates must be a resident of the jurisdictional area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. Upon participating in the selection process, the writ petitioner was initially selected and appointed as per the selection dated 23.12.2009. But, however, by a subsequent order of 13.08.2010, the appointment of the writ petitioner was terminated on a complaint being lodged that the writ petitioner is not a resident of the jurisdictional area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre. 3. The said order of 13.08.2010 was assailed in WP (C) 290/2011, which was disposed of by the order of 26.10.2017, whereby the order dated 13.08.2010 was interfered. 4. One of the grounds for interfering was that, on the basis of an earlier notification dated 31.08.2007, the relevant criteria was that the concerned candidate was required to be a resident of the village where the Centre is located and not a resident of the jurisdictional area of the Centre. 5. The present review petition has been preferred on the ground that the said criteria was not the relevant criteria at the time of the advertisement. 6. By the order dated 21.12.2017, while issuing notice in the review petition, the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017, in WP (C) 290/2011, was stayed. It is stated that after the appointment of the writ petitioner was terminated, the review petitioner was appointed as the Anganwadi worker in the Centre of Mathurapuri (Ka) Anganwadi Centre. 6. By the order dated 21.12.2017, while issuing notice in the review petition, the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017, in WP (C) 290/2011, was stayed. It is stated that after the appointment of the writ petitioner was terminated, the review petitioner was appointed as the Anganwadi worker in the Centre of Mathurapuri (Ka) Anganwadi Centre. Although the said appointment of the review petitioner would, otherwise, have been cancelled but because of the interim order dated 21.12.2017, in the review petition, the review petitioner is still continuing. 7. Without going into any other question, it is deemed appropriate that the interest of justice would be served of an enquiry is conducted as regards the residential status of the writ petitioner as well as that of the review petitioner. In the writ petition, a certificate of the concerned Gaonburha was also included which indicates that some families of Koimari revenue village are also residents within the jurisdictional area of Mathurapuri (Ka) Anganwadi Centre. The writ petitioner claims that they belong to such families who reside within the jurisdictional area of the Centre. The enquiry shall make a physical verification and determine as to where the writ petitioner resides, i.e., whether within the jurisdictional area of the Mathurapuri (Ka) Anganwadi Centre or not. Similar enquiry shall also be made as regards the residential status of the review petitioner. 8. Upon the said exercise being undertaken, a final decision shall be taken by the authorities as to between the writ petitioner and the review petitioner, who be appointed as the Anganwadi worker. The enquiry as indicated above, shall be conducted through the appropriate Circle Officer to be deputed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) . Depending on the result of the enquiry, conducted by the Circle Officer, The Director of Social Welfare shall pass order as to who between the writ petitioner and the review petitioner should be the Anganwadi worker of the said Centre. 9. The exercise in conducting the enquiry be completed by the concerned Circle Officer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and thereafter within a period of another one month, the Director of Social Welfare shall pass a fresh order depending on the report of the enquiry. 9. The exercise in conducting the enquiry be completed by the concerned Circle Officer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and thereafter within a period of another one month, the Director of Social Welfare shall pass a fresh order depending on the report of the enquiry. The order to be passed by the Director shall prevail over all other earlier orders passed, irrespective of whether such orders were confirmed or interfered by this Court. In terms of the above, review petition stands disposed of.