Asiya Begum v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors

ORDER

15.05.2024 Heard Sri A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri CKS Barua, learned State Counsel.

¶2Considering the subject matter of dispute and the pleaded case of the rival parties, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶3The issue is with a claim for consideration and appointment as Anganwadi Worker.

¶4The projected facts by the petitioner is that she was appointed as Anganwadi Helper in the year 2007 in the Nadia Allot Anganwadi Centre in the district of Nalbari and has been continuously working. A vacancy arose in the said Centre in the post of Angawadi Worker on the death of an incumbent. The petitioner, who consider herself as eligible in the all respects had applied for the same. However, no action was taken for consideration and therefore she has approached this Court by this writ petition.

¶5Shri Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the notification dated 01.03.2013, more specifically Clause 6 thereof has submitted that even the aspect of age is fulfilled by the petitioner as by the aforesaid provision a candidate is to be above 45 years. The learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be issued for consideration and disposal of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶6Shri Sarma Barua, learned State Counsel has submitted that the approach of the petitioner by means of this writ petition filed in the year 2021 is itself lacking bona fide. He submits that while reliance has been sought to be made on a notification dated 01.03.2013, the said notification was partially modified immediately on 04.03.2013 wherein it was rectified that the maximum age for Page No.# 3/3 consideration for appointment of an Anganwadi Helper to the post of Anganwadi Worker is 45 years. The said aspect has been pleaded in details in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 24.08.2022 wherein the Circular dated 04.03.2013 has also been annexed.

¶7After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court has found that the basis of the entire pleadings is upon a notification dated 01.03.2013 which however was modified vide the notification dated 04.03.2013. In fact, the said notification dated

04.03.2013 which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 24.08.2022 would make it clear that earlier notification dated

01.03.2023 was modified wherein there is a clear stipulation that Anganwadi Helper, to be eligible for promotion should not be more than 45 years of age at the time of consideration. There is no dispute in the Bar that the age of the petitioner is more than 45 years. This Court has also noticed that the subsequent notification dated 04.03.2013 is not the subject matter of challenge

¶8In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that no relief, whatsoever is entitled to by the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010185232021 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5933/2021o ASIYAoBEGUMo W/OoESCHARoALIo VILLAGEoNO.o2,oLARKUCHI,oPOoLARKUCHI,oPSoMUKALMUA,oDISTo NALBARI,oASSAM,o781138 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo2oORSo TOoBEoREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYo,oSOCIAL WELFAREoDEPARTMENT,oDISPURoGUWAHATIo06 2:THEoDIRECTORoOFoSOCIALoWELFAREoDEPARTMENT oASSAM oUZANoBAZAR oGUWAHATIo01 3:THEoCHILDoDEVELOPMENToPROJECToOFFICERo(CDPO) oBARKHETRIoI.C.D.SoPROJECT oMUKALMUA oDISToNALBARI oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oAoMANNAFo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oGA,oASSAMoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSANJAYoKUMARoMEDHI Page No.# 2/3