Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 796 (GAU)

Gita Rani Karmakar v. State of Assam

2023-07-20

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2023
JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the recommendations made by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Barpeta in respect of Gobardhana ICDS Project for fresh interview against the post of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers held by the petitioners; for setting aside the Government letter issued vide Memo No. SWD.153/2011/66 dated 02.07.2011, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, Dispur thereby directing necessary action of fresh interview in respect of Gobardhana ICDS Project against the posts of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers held by the petitioners in terms with the findings of the recommendations of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Barpeta; for setting aside the letter vide Memo No. BDD-140/2010/ICDS/HC/288 dated 27.07.2011, issued by the Chairman, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Barpeta in respect of Gobardhana ICDS Project against the posts of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers held by the petitioners and for a direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the recommendations of the letters vide Memo No. SWD.153/2011/66 dated 02.07.2011 as well as the Memo No. BDD-140/2010/ICDS/HC/288 dated 27.07.2011. 2. Altogether 84 writ petitioners have joined together in filing the present writ petition. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on 18.09.2006, the Deputy Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar had constituted a Project-Wise Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers for Gobardhana ICDS Project. Pursuant thereto on 13.03.2007, an advertisement was issued. The petitioners herein claimed that they were selected in the said selection process and they were thereupon equated. From the pleadings it is not clear as to when the petitioners were appointed/engaged as Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers nor there is any document placed on record as to when the petitioners were engaged as Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers. Be that as it may, the selection which was carried out by the BTC Authorities for engagement of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers were put to challenge in various writ petitions filed in the year 2007 and 2008. All the writ petitioners were disposed of vide an order dated 10.12.2009 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court issuing various directions. Relevant herein to mention that this Court had directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department to scrutinize the grievances of the petitioners by constituting various Committee(s) District-wise or Sub-Division wise. All the writ petitioners were disposed of vide an order dated 10.12.2009 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court issuing various directions. Relevant herein to mention that this Court had directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department to scrutinize the grievances of the petitioners by constituting various Committee(s) District-wise or Sub-Division wise. Pursuant to the said directions, various Sub-Divisional Committees were constituted. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department had issued a communication to the Child Development Project Officer of Gobardhana ICDS Project on 02.07.2011, thereby enclosing the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee in respect to Barpeta district. In the said recommendation there was a reference being made to five writ petitions which were in relation to Gobardhana ICDS Project and it was recommended for fresh interview. The petitioners who were engaged pursuant to the selection process which culminated with the select list published on 21.07.2007 being aggrieved by the said recommendation have approached this Court. 3. It reveals from the record that this Court while issuing notice had also directed vide the order dated 24.08.2011 not to hold fresh selection pursuant to the communication issued on 27.07.2011 issued by the Chairman, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Barpeta. The interim order was extended from time to time and presently subsists. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein pursuant to their engagement have been continuing till the date and have been receiving their honorarium. 5. It reveals from the record that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 18.01.2012. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the said Gobardhana ICDS Project was located partially in Baska District which falls under the authority of the BTC and partially in under Barpeta district which is non-BTC area. It was further mentioned that the BTC Authority constituted a Selection Committee vide the notification dated 18.09.2006 for engagement of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers. It was mentioned that the said Committee has issued an advertisement on 13.03.2007 and the result was declared on 21.07.2007. It was further mentioned there was no records available regarding jurisdiction of the BTC Authority in respect of selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in non-BTC area. It is however mentioned that on 31.08.2007, the Government of Assam had issued two notifications. It was further mentioned there was no records available regarding jurisdiction of the BTC Authority in respect of selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in non-BTC area. It is however mentioned that on 31.08.2007, the Government of Assam had issued two notifications. One of such notification was in respect of 6th Schedule areas and the other related to Rest of Assam. Further perusal of said notification dated 31.08.2007 in respect to the 6th Schedule Areas, it would show that the totally separate Selection Committee was constituted and various guidelines were laid down on the basis of which the selection was to be carried out. 6. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court therefore take note of the respective submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. R. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein were engaged pursuant to their selection and prior to the issuance of the notification dated 31.08.2007, and as such, a right has been created in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that the notification dated 31.08.2007, whereby for the first time, the Government of Assam had segregated ICDS Project on the basis of territory was not there earlier and the ICDS Projects were being run on the basis of project and had no relation whatsoever as regards the territory. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that as the petitioners were duly engaged prior to coming into effect the notification dated 31.08.2007, the engagement of the petitioners as Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers cannot be disturbed on the basis of the recommendation so made by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee which is impugned in the instant proceedings. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Social Welfare Department submitted that from the perusal of the affidavit so filed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, it would transpire that the results were only declared on 21.07.2007 and pursuant thereto on 31.08.2007, the notification was issued thereby a new Selection Committee had been constituted and the new set of guidelines have been issued. He, therefore, submitted that if there has been no engagement to the petitioners prior to the issuance of the said notification, the petitioners have no right in as much as merely being selected would not confer a right to be appointed/engaged. 9. Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC submitted that as to whether the petitioners were engaged prior to 31.08.2007 and as to whether they were at all engaged or selected requires a fact finding enquiry which can only be done at the level of the officials in the BTC Department. He submitted that such facts finding enquiry can be done by the Principal Secretary of the BTC whereby the Principal Secretary may form Committee for making such verification after giving due notice to the petitioners. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The pivotal question which arises as to whether the petitioners herein were at all selected in the result which was pronounced on 21.07.2007 and thereupon as to whether the petitioners were issued engagement letters as Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers prior to 31.08.2007. This Court is also of the view that if there has been no engagement letters being issued to the petitioners even upon being selected prior to 31.08.2007, the petitioners would not have a right over the post held by them on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. 11. This Court further is of the opinion that this aspect of the matter requires a fact finding enquiry which can be done so by the BTC Authorities. 12. In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, BTC to constitute Committee/Committees for making verification as to whether the petitioners herein were duly selected in the selection process initiated on the basis of the advertisement dated 13.03.2007 in respect to which the result was declared on 21.07.2007 and further as to whether the petitioners were issued engagement letters prior to 31.08.2007. It is made clear that if upon verification it is found that the petitioners or any of the petitioners were duly selected and thereupon engaged by issuance of engagement letters prior to 31.08.2007, a vested right has been conferred upon the petitioners to continue in respect to the said posts of held. It is made clear that if upon verification it is found that the petitioners or any of the petitioners were duly selected and thereupon engaged by issuance of engagement letters prior to 31.08.2007, a vested right has been conferred upon the petitioners to continue in respect to the said posts of held. It is also observed that in the eventuality upon verification it is found that the petitioners or some of the petitioners were not selected, such petitioners shall have no right over the posts so held by them. In the similar vein, it is also observed that if the petitioners or some of the petitioners were not engaged by issuance of engagement letters prior to 31.08.2007, such petitioners shall have no right over the posts held by them. 13. This Court further directs that the exercise be completed by giving due opportunity to the petitioners and within a period of 6 (six) months from today. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of this judgment to Mr. S. Bora, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC Authorities for effective compliance. 14. The interim order by which the services of the petitioners were protected will continue till the verification process is completed. 15. With the above observation and direction the instant petition stands disposed of.