Anjali Rajbangshi v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors

ORDER Date : 30-01-2023 Heard Mr. B Sinha, learned counsel for the review petitioner, who submits that the order dated 07.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 5879/2022 should be set aside, to enable the petitioner to participate in the promotion process for the post of Anganwadi Worker in 101 No. Dahudi Anganwadi Center, in terms of the advertisement dated 24.08.2022.

¶2He submits that this Court had dismissed WP(C) No. 5879/2022, vide order dated 07.09.2022, on the ground that the petitioner had approached this Court after the last date of submission of the application forms of candidates was over.

¶3He also submits that the order dated 07.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 5879/2022 was challenged before the learned Division Bench, vide WA No. 309/2022 and the learned Division Bench was pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition before this Court, on the ground that certain grounds which had been raised before this Court had not been considered by this Court. Page No.# 3/6

¶4Mr. B Sinha, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the sole issue that has to be decided by this Court is with regard to the age bar/criteria prescribed in the advertisement dated 24.08.2022, which provides that the age of a candidate for promotion from the post of Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker should not be above 45 years of age.

¶5The petitioner's counsel submits that there should not be any age bar of Anganwadi Helpers, for promotion to Anganwadi Workers and as such, the petitioner should also be allowed to participate in the selection process for promotion from Anganwadi Helpers to Anganwadi Workers, in terms of the advertisement dated 24.08.2022.

¶6Mr. P Saikia, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 5879/2022. He also submits that no special reason is forthcoming in the submission made by the counsel for the review petitioner, to warrant any interference with the order dated 07.09.2022. He also submits that the grievance of the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation before this Court and the present grievance is the same and no new ground has been taken by the review petitioner's counsel today.

¶7I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Page No.# 4/6

¶8The petitioner had approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 5879/2022, to allow him to participate in the selection process for the post of Anganwadi Helper. However, the advertisement dated 24.08.2022 provided that the age of the candidates shall not be above 45 years in terms of Clause-6 of the Government notification dated 04.03.2013 issued by the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department. The petitioner's age is 46 years.

¶9This Court, on considering the prayer of the petitioner to participate in the selection process for promotion, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had approached this Court only on 06.09.2022, while the last date of submission of applications of candidates in terms of the advertisement dated

24.08.2022 was 03.09.2022. This Court had accordingly dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had missed the bus.

¶10The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached the learned Division Bench by way of WA No. 309/2022. The learned Division Bench in its order dated

27.09.2022 recorded the contention of the review petitioner's counsel, which is to the effect that certain grounds, which had been raised before this Court had not been considered. The learned Division Bench held that they did not find any such contention having been raised before this Court. However, as the learned counsel for the review petitioner's contended that grounds that had been taken Page No.# 5/6 in the writ petition had not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, liberty to file the review petition was given by the learned Division Bench. The order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WA No. 309/2022 is reproduced below:- "Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that certain grounds which had been raised before the learned Single Judge have not been considered. We do not find any such contention having been raised before the learned Single Judge. Still, however, learned counsel for the appellant contends that those grounds have been taken in the writ petition but not dealt with by the learned Single Judge. With a liberty to file a review application before the learned Single Judge, the instant appeal is disposed of at this stage."

¶11As can be seen from the above order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Division Bench, the petitioner's case is that certain grounds, which had been raised before this Court had not been considered by this Court. However, as can be seen from the preceding paragraphs, the only contention raised by the review petitioner's counsel before this Court today, is that there should not be any age bar for promotion from Anganwadi Helpers to Anganwadi Workers, thereby enabling the petitioner to participate in the selection process.

¶12On considering the ground taken by the review petitioner's counsel today, this Court finds that the same and only ground had been taken by the review petitioner during hearing and disposal of WP(C) No. 5879/2022. This Court had Page No.# 6/6 not allowed the writ petition, in view of the fact that the last date for submission of applications of candidates had already expired, prior to the petitioner approaching this Court. As the said issue has already been decided and no new ground/issue is forthcoming today, this Court finds that no case for review has been made out.

¶13The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010213242022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oReview.Pet./162/2022o ANJALIoRAJBANGSHIo W/OoLAKHESWARoROY,o VILL-oDAHUDI,oP.O.oSOLMARA,oP.S.oBELSOR,oDIST.-oNALBARI,oASSAM,oPIN- 781338. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo4oORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oSOCIALo WELFAREoDEPTT.,oASSAM,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o781006. 2:THEoDIRECTOR oSOCIALoWELFAREoDEPARTMENT oASSAM oUZANBAZAR oGUWAHATI-o781001. 3:THEoDIVISIONALoPROGRAMMEoOFFICER oKAMRUP oBELTOLA oGUWAHATI-o781028. 4:THEoDISTRICToSOCIALoWELFAREoOFFICER oNALBARI oASSAM. 5:THEoCHILDoDEVELOPMENToPROJECToOFFICER oPASCHIMoNALBARIoICDSoPROJECT oCHAMATA oNALBARI oASSAMo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMRoBoSINHAo Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA