JOONMANI PAGAG GAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by making a challenge to an order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Director, Social Welfare whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the Uttar Bagoriguri Mini Anganwadi Centre has been held to be not sustainable. Such order has been passed pursuant to an order dated 23.09.2014 passed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation instituted by the petitioner being WP(C) No. 4957/2014.

(2.) The tussle is between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 with regard to appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the Uttar Bagoriguri Mini Anganwadi Centre. However, before going to the issue raised in this petition, it would be convenient to state the brief facts of the case.

(3.) The petitioner claimed to be a permanent resident within the newly created Uttar Bagoriguri Mini Anganwadi Centre under the jurisdiction of the Child Development Project Officer, Majuli ICDS Project, Jorhat. Pursuant to a recruitment drive to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide an advertisement dated 13.06.2013, the petitioner, who had the necessary qualification had applied for the same and claimed to have fared well. However, in alleged violation of the Rules and guidelines, the respondent No. 5 has been preferred over the petitioner for such appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the said respondent No. 5 is not a resident of the said locality, which is a requirement and therefore was not eligible for consideration for such appointment. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4957/2014. This Court upon hearing the parties had passed an order dated 23.09.2014 disposing of the writ petition by directing the Director, Social Welfare to make an enquiry into the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of her representation. The representation was accordingly considered and the Director came to a finding that the allegations of the petitioner regarding the domicile of the respondent No. 5 was unfounded and accordingly the representation was rejected. As indicated above, it is the said order of the Director dated 02.07.2015 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.