JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. S.M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Doloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 5 for the Social Welfare Department of Govt. of Assam and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents No.6 and 7. 2. An advertisement was issued from the office of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) dated 16.09.2019 inviting applications, amongst others, for the various posts of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper under the Integrated Child Development Project (ICDP) Dhakuakhana. Pursuant thereof, the selection was held and the petitioners herein namely, Nayanmoni Hazarika and Mrs. Deboti Doley were appointed as Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper respectively by two orders both dated 11.03.2013 of the CDPO, Dhakuakhana. Without arraying the petitioners as respondents, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 along with one Smti. Debajani Gogoi preferred WP(C) No.2324/2013. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the order dated 27.06.2013 which is extracted hereunder:- "Heard Mr.P.J.Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.K.Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. In this writ petition, petitioners seek a direction to respondent No.4, Child D evelopment Project Officer, Dhakuakhana ICDS Project, Lakhimpur for issuing necessary consequential appointment orders as Anganwadi Worker in their respective Anganwadi Centres following enquiry report dated 29.1.2011. Petitioners had appeared in the selection for appointment as Anganwadi Worker and they were selected. As per enquiry report of the Child Development Project Officer, Dhakuakhana ICDS Project dated 29.1.2011, the residence of the petitioners have been found to be within the area of the concerned Anganwadi Centres. The particulars of the petitioners are as under :- Petitioner No.1,Debajani Gogoi Khubung Chapari Anganwadi Centre Petitioner No.2,Phulkumari Pegu ..Joyrampur Baghhara Anganwadi Centre Petitioner No.3, Golapi Hazarika and Dakhin Pithial Anganwadi Centre On 6.5.2013, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instruction as to why the petitioners have not been appointed as Anganwadi Worker despite the enquiry report dated 29.1.2011. On 6.6.2013, time was sought for by the learned Standing Counsel to obtain necessary instruction. Today, when the matter is called upon, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has not been posted with the requisite information. On 6.6.2013, time was sought for by the learned Standing Counsel to obtain necessary instruction. Today, when the matter is called upon, learned Standing Counsel submits that he has not been posted with the requisite information. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the case need not be kept pending and necessary direction may now be issued to respondent No.4 to issue necessary consequential engagement orders of the petitioners as Anganwadi Worker in their respective Anganwadi Centres. Such engagement orders shall be issued within a period of one month from today. Writ petition is disposed of." 3. It is discernible from the order of 27.06.2013 that firstly the said order was passed as because the respondents in the Social Welfare Department had failed to provide necessary information to the Court as to why the petitioners therein were not appointed. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the CDPO, Dhakuakhana to issue necessary consequential engagement orders to the petitioners therein as Anganwadi Worker in their respective Anganwadi centres. We take specific note that although there was a direction to issue consequential engagement orders to the two petitioners therein ("respondents No.6 and 7 in the present petition") but there was no such order requiring the authorities to cancel the appointment already made in favour of the present petitioners. Be that as it may, by referring to the order dated 27.06.2013 in WP(C) 2324/2013, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam had communicated to the CDPO, ICDS Project requiring him to comply with the Court's order and submit an action taken report within 15 days. In the circumstance by the two orders dated 16.02.2015, the CDPO, ICDS Project, Dhakuakhana had cancelled the appointments of the petitioners Smti. Nayanmoni Hazarika as Anganwadi Helper and Smti. Deboti Doley as Anganwadi Worker. We again reiterate that neither the petitioners Nayanmoni Hazarika nor Mrs. Deboti Doley were arrayed as respondents in WP(C) 2324/2013 so as to make any direction contained therein applicable to the present petitioners. 4. Mr. T. Doloi, learned counsel for the Social Welfare Department has made an oral submission that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners were made by following the direction of this Court in its order dated 27.06.2013 in WP(C) 2324/2013. 4. Mr. T. Doloi, learned counsel for the Social Welfare Department has made an oral submission that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners were made by following the direction of this Court in its order dated 27.06.2013 in WP(C) 2324/2013. We have perused the order of 27.06.2013, but have not noticed any such direction by this Court to cancel the appointment of the petitioners nor any such direction is discernible in the communication of the Director made to the CDPO dated 31.08.2013. From such view of the matter, particularly in the context of the oral submission of the learned counsel for the Social Welfare Department there does not appear any apparent justifiable reason to cancel the appointment of the petitioners. An attempt is also made by Mr. T. Doloi, learned counsel by referring to a document annexed at Annexure-V page 52 of the writ petition which is claimed to be a final report dated 29.01.2011 of the Circle Officer, Dhakuakhana Revenue Circle to take a stand that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners were also pursuant to the said purported enquiry report dated 29.01.2011. We even gone through the enquiry report dated 29.01.2011 but have noticed that in the enquiry report nothing adverse has been stated against the two petitioners. It being so, a prima facie view is formed that even if reliance is made on the so called enquiry report dated 29.01.2011 of the Circle Report to justify the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners appears to be misleading and mischievous. 5. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the two orders of cancellation dated 16.02.2015 of the CDPO by which the appointment of the petitioners were cancelled. As we have already arrived at a conclusion that no reasons are discernible for effecting such cancellation and the reasons so stated are unfounded and also misleading, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- each on the then CDPO who had passed the orders dated 16.02.2015 to be paid to the two petitioners within a period of three months and the cost is to be deducted from the salary of the concerned CDPO. 6. Writ petition stands allowed as indicated above.