FIROJA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the engagement of the respondent No. 7 (an outsider) by the respondent authorities as Anganwadi helper for No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10) under No. 4, Bhujmari village Aganwadi Centre by overlooking her case (a local candidate). The case of the petitioner is that she passed her Class VIII standard examination, is a resident of No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10) under No. 4, Bhojmari village Anganwadi Centre and, is, therefore, eligible to be engaged as Anganwadi Centre. The eastern boundary of this Anganwadi Centre is Tiniali (Masjid), its western boundary being the house of Sirajul, its northern boundary as Dighali Beel and Mariani Beel as its southern boundary. The respondent No. 7 is a resident of the neighbouring Anganwadi Centre and is, therefore, not eligible for her engagement in No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10).

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4, who is the Child Development Project Officer of Sootea Integrated Child Development Project, Sonitpur issued the advertisement dated 28.12.2010 inviting applications from interested candidates to serve as volunteer for the posts of Anganwadi worker and helper. One of the eligibility criteria for the post of Anganwadi Helper is permanent residency of the area of the selected centre: certificate to that effect should be signed by the local by the Local Government Gaonburha as well as a member of the Gaon Panchayat. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner offered her candidature for the post of Anganwadi helper by submitting her application as per the prescribed form annexed with all the requisite documents including he certificates of the respective Panchayat and Gaonburha. Apart from the petitioner, there was another candidate for the Centre in question. She was then called upon to take part in the interview held on 22.2.2011, which she did. As she performed well in the interview, she had legitimately expected that she would be selected for the post, which turned out to be a false expectation.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that when she was not informed of the result of the interview for considerable period of time, she sought for the comparative statement of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview held on 22.2.2011 and was, after inordinate delay, furnished to her on 14.12.2011. On the basis of the comparative statement, she found that she had been selected whereas the other candidate was not selected as she was found to be underage. According to the petitioner, the legality of her selection was never questioned by any authority or person and, as such, she should have been engaged as Anganwadi helper. On the contrary, she was surprised to find that the respondent No. 7, a rank outsider and who not even a candidate for this Centre, was engaged as Anganwadi helper for the Centre. It is the contention of the petitioner that the engagement of the respondent No. 7 as Anganwadi helper at No. 2 Chuburi (Centre No. 10) under No. 4 Bhojmari overlooking her is contrary to the term and condition of the advertisement in question and the same is liable to be quashed.