DIPIKA BAIRAGI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit filed by the respondents shall be retained with the records. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the petitioner. petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper by an order dated 3rd February, 2010 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Basirhat (Urban) Integrated Child Development Services Project. It is noted that she had responded to an advertisement that was issued on 24th September, 2009 by such Child Development Project Officer (hereafter the CDPO).

(2.) In terms of the prevalent guidelines relating to appointment of Anganwadi Helpers, a prospective candidate was required to pass Class VIII from a school. The guidelines also provided that if a candidate suppresses her academic qualification and obtains appointment, her service would be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason.

(3.) After the petitioner started discharging duty as an Anganwadi Helper, the CDPO was seized of information that the petitioner had passed class X (Madhyamik) but had deliberately mis-represented her qualification in the application form as class VIII pass. As such, he proceeded to terminate the petitioner's service by passing an order dated 16th April, 2010, which is impugned in this writ petition.