(1.) Heard Mr. R.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Standing Counsel, BTC, for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent No.1. None appears for the private respondent Nos. 8 and 9.
(2.) The case of the petitioners in brief is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent authority for 1 post of Anganwadi Worker and 1 post of Anganwadi Helper in the Christanpara Nodikosh Anganwadi Centre, they responded to the same. However, in the approved selection list which was prepared and forwarded to the Child Development Project Officer, Udalguri, ICDS Project by the Joint Secretary of the BTC on 02.01.2010 (Annexure-H), the names of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were recommended for the post of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper against the said Centre. The petitioners who claimed to be local residents of the Anganwadi Centre area upon learning that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were not a resident of the Centre area submitted their representation on 11.03.2011 (Annexure-I) before the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri District. Pursuant to the complaint as well as the direction of this Court passed in WP(C) No.4412 of 2007 filed by similarly aggrieved persons, the District Magistrate of Udalguri conducted an inquiry and prepared his inquiry report on 01.10.2010 (Annexure-J). In the said inquiry report, the respondent No.8 was found not to be a resident of the Christanpara Nodikosh Anganwadi Centre area, whereas, the respondent No.9 has been found to be a resident of the said Centre area.
(3.) Mr. R.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in fact the recommendation of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the said posts is in clear violation of the guidelines issued by the respondent authorities vide notification dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure-E). He submits that amongst the mandatory conditions, the candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper has to be a local woman residing in the same village where the Anganwadi Centre is located. He further submits that while the respondent No.8 has been clearly found to be an outsider from the findings of the District Magistrate, the respondent No.9 as well is an outsider despite the remarks of the District Magistrate, inasmuch as, both the private respondents hail from the same village. He thus submits that the recommendation made in favour of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside.