AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the State
respondents and Mr. B.C. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as a legal aid counsel.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre under
Barhampur ICDS project under Nagaon District without considering the experience gained by the petitioner as he was working temporarily as
Anganwadi Helper in the same Centre.
It is the case of the petitioner that she was temporarily engaged as Anganwadi Helper under the said Centre on ad hoc basis for a period of 3
months vide Office Order dated 30.06.2008. However, after the expiry of the 3 months period, her engagement was not extended and instead, the
official respondents issued an advertisement for engaging Anganwadi Helper for the Centre concerned. Pursuant to the selection process that was
undertaken, the respondent No.5 was selected and appointed.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner was temporarily engaged for 3 months as Anganwadi Helper but she did
not perform her duties regularly and for that reason, the respondent No.5 was requested by the local people to work for the said Anganwadi Centre as
an Anganwadi Helper. On such request, the respondent No.5 worked as Anganwadi Helper for sometime without any remuneration. Consequently,
an advertisement was issued against the post and the respondent No.5 was selected.
It is seen that the official respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition.
On perusal of the writ petition it is seen that the petitioner has made many allegations including, the violation of the relevant notification and
guidelines issued for appointment of the Anganwadi Helper. However, no such guidelines are annexed to the writ petition. The appointment of the
petitioner admittedly was only temporary in nature while the respondent No.5 was selected and appointed after due process of selection.
Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate, submits that in so far as the contention of the petitioner that due weightage has to be given
to a candidate who has past experience as Angawadi Helper at the time of considering the appointment of the Anganwadi Worker is only
misconceived. He submits that he has not come across any such criteria in the guidelines issued by the Social Welfare Department by the State
Government.
In the appointment order of the petitioner annexed as Annexure-1 in the writ petition, it is seen that the appointment of the petitioner was only for 3
months. The order was issued on 30.06.2008 and in absence of any document to show that the appointment of the respondent No.5 is vitiated on
account of violation of the guidelines, I am unable to accept the contention put forth by the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Mr. B.C. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, being the legal aid counsel, shall be paid his fees by the State Legal Service Authority
as per the schedule made in this regard on production of a copy of this order.