Shipra Rani Das Choudhury vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned additional senior advocate for the respondents. None

appears for the respondent no. 5 inspite of the notice being served.

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.02.2010, the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi worker in respect of AWC No. 183 Bhairabpur

Gaon Panchayat Part-II Anganwadi Centre.

The appointment of the petitioner was assailed by the respondent no. 5 Smti Jaynab Begum Tapadar in WP(C) No. 5323/2016 in which by the

order dated 22.03.2017, the following order was passed:

“the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam to conduct an independent enquiry taking into consideration the allegations and

counter allegations made by the petitioner and the respondent No. 6. It is made clear that the respondent no. 2 shall personally hear the

petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 and also inspect any documents that may be produced by the petitioner as well as respondent no.

Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Such exercise should be completed within a period

of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court by the respondent No. 2. Till such time the respondent No. 2

passes final order, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 is disturbed.â€​

Pursuant to the order dated 22.03.2019 in WP(C) No. 5323/2016, a hearing was conducted by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam in respect of

the petitioner and the respondent no. 5.

In the hearing, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 appeared and as per their respective statements, both of them were resident of Ward

No. 8 of Bhairabpur, Part-II Gaon Panchayat. The Director arrived at his conclusion that the AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part-II under Kalain ICDS

Project has the jurisdictional area over Ward No. 9 of Bhairabpur Part-II Gaon Panchayat. As it was the admitted position of the petitioner as well

that she is a resident of Ward No. 8 of Bhairabpur Part-II Gaon Panchayat, therefore, her residence is not located within the jurisdictional area of

AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part-II. In doing so, the Director of Social Welfare has also taken into consideration a report by the Circle Supervisor which

provided that jurisdictional area of AWC 183 Bhariabpur Part-II covers only Ward No. 9 of Bhairabpur Gaon Panchayat. Accordingly, by the order

dated 21.05.2018, the Director of Social Welfare, Assam had arrived at his conclusion that both the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 were not

residents of the jurisdictional area of AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part-II and as the petitioner was also not a resident within the jurisdictional area of

Anganwadi Centre, therefore, a direction be issued to terminate the service of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker. The order dated 21.05.2018 of the

Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam is assailed in this writ petition.

In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, a stand is taken that the jurisdictional area of AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part II also includes the Ward No. 8 of

Bhairabpur Gaon Panchayat but the Circle Supervisor in his report had not included the Ward No. 8 in the survey register.

The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition against the aforesaid averment of the writ petitioner had taken a specific stand in paragraph 5 which

is extracted as under:

“The notified area of 183 No. Bhariabpur Part II Anganwadi Centre comprises 79 numbers of households in Ward No. 9 in Bhairabpur

Gaon Panchayat and covering 485 numbers of total population, the survey register of Anganwadi Centre reflects its operational area.â€​

The specific stand of the respondent is that the AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part II comprises of 79 numbers of households of Ward No. 9 of Bhairabpur

Gaon Panchayat having a population of 485 and the same is reflected in the survey register of the Anganwadi Centre. The further stand is that the

name of the petitioner is not found in the survey register of AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part II under Kalain ICDS Project. The petitioner in their reply to

the said stand of the respondents merely took the stand that though the petitioner is a resident of Ward No. 8, but the said Ward is within the

Bhairabpur village and the jurisdictional area of AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part-II and the survey area of the AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part-II also includes

Ward No. 8 of Bhairabpur Gaon Panchayat.

We have taken note that paragraph 4 of the affidavit in-reply where the stand of the State respondents in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition

was controverted, has been sworn by the writ petitioner to be on the basis of knowledge whereas on the other hand, the paragraph 5 of the affidavit-

in-opposition of the state respondents is on the basis of records. When we are controverted with the contradiction between the statement on the basis

of public records of the state respondents and the statement of a litigant based on knowledge. In the absence of any further material being produced

that the public record is incorrect, we are inclined to accept the public record to be a better source of information than a statement of a litigant which

is based upon knowledge.

Considering the aforesaid aspect and in the absence of any further material being produced that Ward No. 8 of Bhairabpur Part-II GP is also

included in jurisdictional area of AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part-II, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Director of Social Welfare

Department, Government of Assam dated 21.05.2018.

However, in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, a further stand has been taken that there is no Anganwadi centre which would also have its

jurisdictional authority over Ward No. 8 of Bhairabpur Part 2GP.

The said statement of the petitioner is a speculative statement and if the petitioner is seriously interested to say that as there is no Anganwadi

centre covering the Ward No. 8 of Bhairabpur Part 2 GP, therefore, by default the AWC 183 Bhairabpur Part 2 would also cover Ward No. 8, it

would be open for the Director to look into the question if raised before him by the petitioner.

Writ petition stands dismissed in the above terms.