SAHIDA PARBIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's WP(C) No.5157/2010 on the ground that it involved disputed question of fact which cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The issue relates to appointment of Anganwadi Helper at Centre No.59 Rajahowli (Dakinchura) under Kalaigon ICDS Project. For this Anganwadi Centre, both appellant and respondent No.5 were considered whereafter respondent No.5 has been appointed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed WP(C) No.5157/2010 on the ground that local resident of the Anganwadi Centre, in question, alone could have been appointed and respondent No.5 was not such a resident. In reply, the respondents categorically denied that respondent No.5 was not a local resident of Rajahowli Dakhinchura. A certificate was also filed to show that respondent No.5 was a local resident of Rajahowli Dakhin Anganwadi Centre. Since the question of residence of Respondent No.5 was involved, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground stated above.

(3.) Pursuant to our directions, the learned Government Advocate for the Department of Social Welfare has produced a certificate of residence of respondent No.5. This certificate clearly reveals that she is a resident of Rajahowli. But still the question is whether she is a resident of Rajahowli Southern, moreso because Rajahowli has more than one Anganwadi Centres. To convince us, the learned Government Advocate for the Department has produced the original record of location map and survey register of Centre No. 59 Anganwadi Rejahowli Dakhin and it confirms that respondent No.5 in fact is a resident of Rajahowli Southern part.