CHANDRAMA KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has a chequered history. The petitioner had filed this petition in the year 2021, challenging the selection and appointment of the respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Worker for the Purani Kalitapura Anganwadi Centre at Dudhnoi under the CDPO, Dudhnoi ICDS Project. The primary ground of challenge was that the petitioner had secured more marks in the selection, in spite of which the respondent No. 6 was given the appointment on 6/8/2021. Such appointment was given by considering the fact that the respondentNo.6 belongs to the Sche-duled Caste (SC) Community. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 21/10/2022 as the private respondent No. 6 did not appear after repeated opportunities.

(2.) However, the respondent No. 6 had thereafter preferred a Rev.Pet./169/2022 stating that due to certain mistake in filing the Vakalatnama, the names of the learned counsel for the private respondent No. 6 were not reflected and therefore, they were prevented from appearing at the time of adjudication of the writ petition. Be that as it may, vide order dtd. 16/11/2022, the review petition was also dismissed. Against the dismissal of the review petition, the respondent No. 6 had preferred a writ appeal being WA/371/2022.The Hon'ble Division Bench, vide order dtd. 15/12/2022, had however allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits by setting aside the order passed in review. It is, thereafter, that this matter has been listed for afresh consideration.

(3.) The matter pertains to the selection and appointment of the post of Anganwadi worker in the aforesaid Center and a notice was published on 16/2/2019 in which both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 had participated. It is the case of the petitioner that while she had obtained 59.6 marks in the selection, the respondentNo.6 had obtained 39.9. However, vide the impugned resolution dtd. 22/2/2019, the respondent No. 6 was selected and she was consequently appointed on 6/8/2021 as Anganwadi Worker. The primary consideration for such appointment was that the area in question was having majority population of SC community and the respondentNo.6 belonged to the SC Community and was therefore given the preference. It is the validity and legality of the said appointment which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.