BAIHATUN NESSA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. advocate for State respondents No. 1 to 7 and Mr. B. Sinha along with Mr. U. Das, the learned advocate for the private respondent No.8.

(2.) The appointment of the private respondent No.8 as Anganwadi Helper in Dokaidal Sasanghat under Matia Integrated Child Development Scheme Project Goalpara is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The Integrated Child Development Project Officer, Matia Child Development Project ('CDPO' for short) had issued a notice dated 07.09.2009, inviting applications from candidates wanting to serve for the post of Anganwadi Worker Helper at the newly created Anganwadi Centre. The name of Dokaidal Sasanghat Anganwadi Centre was listed in Sl. No.18 thereof. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as per Clause2 of the said notice, it was a mandatory requirement that the candidate should be a local candidate under the area of the respective centres and it was required that along with the application, there must be a certificate signed by the local Gaonburah, Ward member or the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat. The learned advocate for the petitioner has laid stress and emphasis on the mandatory condition that application of candidates who are outside the area of the centre shall be immediately rejected. It is submitted that the only upon the perusal of the affidavit in opposition filed by CDPO (respondent No.7) on 29.04.2010, that the petitioner came to learn that the Secretary, Mornoi Gaon Panchayat Certificate, Mornoi had issued a certificate dated 16.09.2009 that the respondent No.8 was a resident of Village Mornoi and that the Secretary had also expressed his opinion therein to the effect that as per his knowledge, the residence of the respondent No.8 was nearer to the Dakaidal Sasanghat Centre. In this regard, it is submitted that this Court having correctly appreciated that to say that the private respondent is residing nearer to the Dakaidal Sasanghat Anganwadi Centre is one thing but to say that one is a resident of Dakaidal Sasanghat Anganwadi Centre is entirely different thing, this Court had allowed this writ petition by order dated 18.07.2014 and quashed the engagement of respondent No.8 and direction was issued to appoint the petitioner.