Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1294 (GAU)

Wobenil Humtsoe v. State of Nagaland

2019-11-26

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2019
ORDER : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: On 23.11.2017, through a letter No. ICDS/BD/ESTT-06/01/2015-2016, the Child Development Project Officer, Bhandari ICDS Project directed all the Chairmans of the Village Councils including the village of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6 to submit all the relevant documents of intending candidates duly recommended by the Village Councils on or before 30.11.2017 for the post of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers for which interview would be held on 5th & 6th December, 2017. In that letter, a check list was given and in that check list the following were mentioned; (i) 3(three) recent colour passport size photo, (ii) Candidate should be between the age of 18-35 years for both Anganwadi Workers/Helpers (supported by Birth Certificate), (iii) Anganwadi Workers should be a Matriculate and above and Anganwadi Helpers should be Class-VI (Six) and above duly supported by documents. (iv) Xerox copies of Aadhaar and bank account details are to be submitted, and (v) Candidate should be a permanent resident of the village/town. 3. The petitioner also applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker and submitted all her documents as per the check list being Class-XII passed and a resident of Longayim village. However, when the interview result was declared, to her surprise the respondent No. 6 who was not even a Matriculate was selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Longayim village and the same was supported by a resident certificate issued by the Head G.B. of the village as well as a certificate issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of the Sub-Division and the electoral roll copies of which were annexed to the petition. However, instead of choosing her, the private respondent No. 6 was selected though she did not meet the required minimum educational qualification. Mr. Deputy Commissioner of the Sub-Division and the electoral roll copies of which were annexed to the petition. However, instead of choosing her, the private respondent No. 6 was selected though she did not meet the required minimum educational qualification. Mr. Sentiyanger further submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 who is not eligible for appointment to the post is illegal and not permissible, therefore, the same need to be quashed and set aside and in her place the petitioner who have the requisite qualification and was the only candidate beside the private respondent should be appointed. In support of his submission, Mr. Sentiyanger referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCI of Delhi & Ors.), reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 , paragraphs-22 to 24. The contents of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: "22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement. 23. There is no obligation on the Court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance. 24. The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not present special features warranting any interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 5. Ms. 24. The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not present special features warranting any interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." 5. Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State respondents submitted that the petitioner though is a resident of the village is not actually residing in the village, therefore, she was not eligible for appointment to the post. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the respondent No. 6 was appointed though she is not a Matriculate since no Matriculate was available in the village and as recommended by the Village Council. The learned counsel, thereafter, also submitted that for the post of Anganwadi Worker for all practical purposes the person appointed should be from the village itself. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that in the interview the respondent No. 6 scored more mark then the petitioner, therefore, having no choice, the respondent No. 6 was appointed. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels, there is no denying of the fact that the two most important criterias for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers are; (i) that the person should be a resident of the village and (ii) that the person should be a Matriculate. From the documents filed by the petitioner and the submissions of both the learned counsels, there is nothing to show that she is not a resident of Longayim village and further, there is no challenged to her educational qualification which is supported by the documents issued by the concerned authority. Therefore, it is the petitioner alone who was eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker in their village. The recommendation of the Village Council appears to be misleading because the petitioner by then has already passed Class-XII not only Class-X. Further, it is clear that the private respondent is not a Matriculate, therefore, she is not eligible for the post. As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited above appointment of a person who is ineligible is not permissible and it is illegal. Since, there is no dispute on the fact that Matriculation is a minimum qualification for Anganwadi Worker the private respondent could not have been eligible. Therefore, the question of even considering her suitability and of appointing her to the post does not arise. Since, there is no dispute on the fact that Matriculation is a minimum qualification for Anganwadi Worker the private respondent could not have been eligible. Therefore, the question of even considering her suitability and of appointing her to the post does not arise. As such, whatever may be the level of her performance in the interview would not make her eligible for appointment. From the facts and circumstances and from the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and the documents it is clear that while the petitioner was permanent resident of Longayim village and has passed Class-XII the respondent No. 6, though she is also a resident of the same village was not a Matriculate, therefore, I find merit in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the appointment order which is impugned herein, i.e. Order No. SW/Estt/AWWS-AWHs-2/2006/2884, dated 11.12.2017, is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider her appointment of the petitioner who was one of the candidates out of the two candidates to the post of Anganwadi Workers of Longayim Village within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of.