Smt Dalimi Das vs State of Assam

Manojit Bhuyan, J.—Heard Mr. D.K. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ms. M. Bordoloi, learned counsel represents the private respondent nos. 5, 6, and 7.

The petitioner no. 1 Smt. Dalimi Das had offered her candidature for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in the Kaibartapara Anganwadi Centre. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Smt. Punam Chetry and the petitioner no. 3 i.e. Smt. Bhanumati Boro applied against Nepali Basti Anganwadi Centre and Sonalitari Anganwadi Centre respectively. Each of the Anganwadi Centres above falls under Boko-Bongaon ICDS Project, in the district of Kamrup. Challenge is made to the appointment of respondent no. 5 as Anganwadi Worker at Kaibartapara Anganwadi Centre and that of the respondent no. 6 at Nepali Basti Anganwadi Centre as well as the appointment of respondent no. 7 at Sonalitari Anganwadi Centre. Grounds urged is that the respondent no. 5 could not have been selected for appointment in view of the fact that her selection had been withheld by the State Level Committee on ground of anomalies detected. Challenge to the appointments of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 are made primarily on the ground that the said respondents are outsiders and not local women residing at the village where the concerned Anganwadi Centres are located. Having regard to the guidelines regarding engagement of Anganwadi Helpers and Anganwadi Workers, Mr. Saikia submits that the selection and appointment of the private respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 are wholly illegal.

Mr. B.K. Sharma, on the other hand, submits that the appointments so made under the Boko-Bongaon ICDS Project and at the Anganwadi Centres in question, the same had been made by the State Level Committee after due verification of the entire records of the selection process. Although the State Level Committee in its Meeting dated 03.03.2010 had taken decision for withholding the results of certain centres, the result in respect of Kaibartapara Centre, so reflected at serial no. 35 of the Select List, had been inadvertently shown as withheld. However, the error was rectified and the Roll numbers of the selected candidates have been duly published in the newspaper. Mr. Sharma submits that serial no. 35 and 36 of the Select List makes mention of 2(two) Anganwadi Centres, going for the names of Kaibartapara (Jalukbari) and Kalitapara (Jalukbari) respectively. Although in terms of the Minutes of the Meeting of the State Level Committee, held on 03.03.2010, anomalies/irregularities were found in respect of Kalitapara (Jalukbari), however, due to typographical error, result of Kaibartapara (Jalukbari) at serial number 35 was also shown to have been withheld. According to Mr. Sharma and as clarified in the affidavit-in-opposition, there were no anomalies/irregularities in respect of selection of the respondent no. 5 against the Kaibartapara Anganwadi Centre.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In so far as the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 5 is concerned, the statements made at paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition appears to have clarified the controversy. The Minutes of the State Level Committee dated 03.03.2010 also categorically shows that anomalies/irregularities were detected only in respect of Kalitapara Anganwadi Centre. The said Minutes of the Meeting, which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition, do not disclose any anomalies/irregularities in respect of Kaibartapara Anganwadi Centre. In this respect, the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 5 cannot be held to have been vitiated. In so far as the selection and appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 are concerned, no documents have been placed on record by the writ petitioners demonstrating that they are outsiders and/or are not local women residing in the village within the Nepali Basti Anganwadi Centre and Sonalitari Anganwadi Centre respectively. For invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner will have to come up with a clear case supported by documentary evidence. In the instant case the allegation that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 are rank outsiders, the same do not find established as no documents in that regard have been placed on record.

In view of the discussions above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.