Gauhati High Court
Mina Kalita vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 12 September, 2019
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010092412009
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 5694/2009
1:MINA KALITA
W/O SONESWAR HALOI, VILL. BURINAGAR, PO. BURINAGAR, PS.
NALBARI, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT.
OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DISPUR, GHY-6.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
ASSAM
UZAN BAZAR
GHY-1
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
3:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER
MADHUPUR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROJECT
MADHUPUR
PO. MADHUPUR
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
ANGANWADI WORKERS AND HELPERS OF ANGANWADI CENTRES OF
MADHUPUR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PROJECT
REP. BY THE C.D.P.O. OF MADHUPUR ICDS PROJECT
MADHUPUR
PS/DISET. NALBARI
ASSAM
5:KALPANA HALOI
W/O NARESWAR HALOI
VILL. BURINAGAR
Page No.# 2/5
PO. BURINAGAR
PS/DIST. NALBARI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ORDER
Date : 12-09-2019 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1 to 4. None has appeared for respondent No.5, though served.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of selection and appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Worker in No.9 Bilpar Barigaon Chuba Anganwadi Centre under Madhupur ICDS Project in the district of Nalbari and further seeks a direction to the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Helper in the said Anganwadi Center.
Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 had issued advertisement for engagement of Anganwadi Worker (24 numbers) and Anganwadi Helpers (24 numbers) in different Anganwadi Centers. One of the conditions in the advertisement was that the candidate should be a permanent resident of the area within the Anganwadi Center. Applications of candidates from outside the Anganwadi Center area would be summarily rejected. Petitioner being eligible had applied for Anganwadi Helper in the said No.9 Bilpar Barigaon Chuba Anganwadi Center. It is stated that altogether 10 candidates had applied including the petitioner. However, respondent No.5 applied for engagement as Anganwadi Helper in respect of No.8 Buri Nagar Bilpar Anganwadi Center and not for No. 9 Bilpar Barigaon Chuba Anganwadi Center where petitioner had applied. Interview was held on 15.10.2009. According to the petitioner, she came to know that select list was published on 05.11.2009 in which respondent No.5 was shown to be selected as Anganwadi Helper in respect of 9 Bilpar Barigaon Chuba Anganwadi Center.
Page No.# 3/5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid, present writ petition came to be filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
By order dated 18.12.2009, this Court had admitted the writ petition for hearing while calling for the record.
A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, i.e., Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Madhupur ICDS Project. In the said affidavit, stand taken is that both petitioner and respondent No.5 had applied for engagement as Anganwadi Helper of 9 Bilpar Barigaon Chuba Anganwadi Center as respondent No.5 was also a resident of village Burinagar of Nalbari district. In the list of candidates, petitioner was placed at Serial No.31 and respondent No.5 at Serial No.34. Following interview, a comparative statement of marks was prepared on 04.11.2009 wherefrom it is seen that while petitioner secured 139 marks with average of 27.8, respondent No.5 secured 198 marks with average of 39.6. Since respondent No.5 secured more marks, she was selected. Relevant portion of the list of candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement has been annexed to the affidavit which discloses that petitioner's name was at Serial No.31 while that of respondent No.5 at
34. In the hearing, which took place on 15.12.2018, original record was produced by learned Government Advocate and the same was perused by the Court whereafter the following order was passed:-
"On perusal of the record the primary contention of manipulation does not appear to be correct. However, this view is only a prima facie view of the Court.
In the said record, it is seen that in the comparative statement the name of respondent No. 5, and another is inserted by hand whereas the other entries are typed written. The respondent may file an affidavit explaining the reason as to why the two entries had been made by hand writing. Depending upon the explanation that may be forthcoming in the affidavit, further order will be passed in this writ petition.
The original records produced today are returned to the learned counsel."
Shri Achyut Talukdar, presently serving as CDPO, Madhupur ICDS Project, has filed an Page No.# 4/5 affidavit on 29.08.2019. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, he has stated that after verifying the record of selection, he contacted the then CDPO, Smt. Niva Das who is presently serving as Joint Director in the office of Director of Social Welfare, Assam. Smt. Das told him that perhaps names of petitioner and another were inadvertently left out while typing and when it came to the notice of the authorities, it was incorporated in the comparative statement by hand.
In this connection, it is stated that record further reveals that names of two of the selected candidates, i.e., Smt. Kalpana Haloi (respondent No.5) and Smt. Junmoni Das were available in the merit list of Anganwadi Helper at Serial Nos.21 and 22 which was prepared and signed by the authorities on 04.11.2009. That apart, name of one more candidate Smt. Sunita Medhi was incorporated by hand in the comparative statement though she was not selected for appointment due to securing lesser mark. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated that reason for making entry in the comparative statement by hand was due to inadvertent clerical mistake.
Record of selection has once again been produced by Mr. Nath which has been perused.
From the record, it is seen that respondent No.5 had submitted application on 17.09.2019 for 9 Bilpar Barigaon Chuba Anganwadi Center which is the Anganwadi Center in question.
As already pointed out in the affidavit, in the selection which took place, respondent No.5 secured 198 marks whereas petitioner secured 139 marks and therefore respondent No.5 was selected.
In the hearing which took place on 15.12.2018, this Court had taken a prima facie view that the allegation of manipulation in the record does not appear to be correct. On going through the record and the pleadings, I am also in agreement with the view expressed in the order dated 15.12.2018.
In the light of the discussions as above, both the grounds of challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 fail. Consequently, writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Page No.# 5/5 Record produced by Mr. Nath is returned back.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant