Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Gulbeda Begum vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 31 August, 2022

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                       Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010171222022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/5615/2022

            GULBEDA BEGUM
            W/O. TAZNUR ALI, VILL. DOLOITOLA, P.O. SANIADI, DIST. KAMRUP,
            ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL
            WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

            2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT.

             ASSAM
             UZANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI-01.

            3:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER

             HAJO ICDS PROJECT
             P.O. HAJO
             DIST. KAMRUP
             ASSAM
             PIN-7

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/5

                                BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                     ORDER

31.08.2022 Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Anganwadi Helper at 2 No. Doloitola Anganwadi Centre under Hajo ICDS Project and she has been working as Anganwadi Helper for more than 15 years.

2. The petitioner's counsel submits that as there is a vacancy in the post of Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner should be considered for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker, in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department vide Notification No. SWD.107/2007/80-A dated 04.03.2013.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that while the petitioner was expecting to be considered for promotion from Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Centre, the State respondents have issued an Advertisement dated 18.08.2022, wherein applications have been invited from the candidates for filling up the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker by direct recruitment.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Advertisement dated 18.08.2022 should be set aside and promotion should be made to the post of Anganwadi Worker, in terms of the Notification dated 04.03.2013.

5. Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents submits that the petitioner had earlier filed WP(C) No.3409/2015, praying that she should be allowed to participate in the selection process for direct recruitment to the same vacant post of Anganwadi Worker, in terms of an Advertisement dated 12.05.2014. The petitioner submitted her application form, for being considered Page No.# 3/5 for the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker. However, the same was rejected the State respondents, on the ground that the Bachelor Preparatory Programme (BPP) Certificate submitted by the petitioner was not equivalent to a HSLC Certificate, which was the eligibility criteria required for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court vide WP(C) No.3409/2015. She submits that this Court, vide order dated 03.11.2017, dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner's BPP Certificate was not equivalent to a HSLC Certificate.

6. I have learned the learned counsels for the parties.

7. As rightly pointed out by Ms. A. Talukdar, the writ petitioner had filed WP(C) 3409/2015, with a prayer to direct the respondents, to accept the petitioner's application for direct recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 12.05.2015. The State respondents having rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the BPP Certificate was not equivalent to a HSLC Certificate, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.3409/2015, with a prayer that she should be allowed to participate in the selection process. However, this Court, vide order dated 03.11.2017, dismissed WP(C) No.3409/2015.

8. In the present case, the petitioner has now taken a 'U' turn and has come up with a plea that the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker, which she had applied for earlier, should now be filled up by way of promotion from an Anganwadi Helper. There is nothing to show that the post of Anganwadi Worker in 2 No. Doloitola Anganwadi Centre has been earmarked for filling up by promotion, in terms of the letter dated 06.10.2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Women & Child Development, wherein 25% of the posts of Anganwadi Worker were to be filled up by promotion from Anganwadi Helper.

Page No.# 4/5

9. In the case of Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots Associations of India vs Director General of Civil Aviation , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435, the Apex Court has held that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel -- the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily.

10. The facts of the case show that the petitioner has been taking inconsistent stands before this Court. In WP(C) No.3409/2015, the petitioner has prayed for allowing her to participate in the selection process for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker by way of direct recruitment. However, in the present case, the petitioner has taken a different stand, i.e. that the post of Anganwadi Worker should be filled up by way of promotion. As can be seen from the judgment of the Apex Court, a party cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold or approbate and reprobate. As such, inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner in two different writ petitions cannot be accepted by this Court. The petitioner in an earlier proceeding, having already prayed for allowing her to participate in the selection process by way of direct recruitment, the stand taken by the petitioner in this case to consider her for promotion to the same post is rejected.

11. In view of the reasons stated hereinabove and in keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots Page No.# 5/5 Associations of India (supra), this writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

Send back the records of the disposed of case, i.e. WP(C) 3409/2015.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant