Swapna Paddar Sarkar vs. The State Of Assam And 6 Ors

Held

The Court held that while the State respondents claimed respondent No. 7 was a resident of the Anganwadi Centre area and had produced a residency certificate, no concrete documents were annexed to the affidavit to substantiate this claim. The Court found no definitive proof on record to establish whether respondent No. 7 was indeed a resident of the concerned area. Therefore, instead of requisitioning further records, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Director of the Social Welfare Department (respondent No. 2) to examine the matter afresh. The Director is to summon both the petitioner and respondent No. 7, provide them an opportunity to be heard, and allow them to produce their respective residential certificates. Upon examination of these documents, the Director shall pass necessary orders. If respondent No. 7 is found to be a resident, her appointment will not be disturbed. If she is found not to be a resident, her appointment will stand terminated, and a fresh process for filling the post will be initiated, giving the petitioner a fair chance to participate.

Facts

The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker advertised on 19.10.2012. The selection list dated 27.08.2013 placed respondent No. 7 first, who was subsequently appointed. The petitioner, a graduate, contended that respondent No. 7, a matriculate, was not a resident of the Pachim Amguri Anganwadi Centre area, violating advertisement condition No. 2 and Social Welfare Department guidelines dated 16.06.2012, which mandate local residency for candidates. The State respondents argued that respondent No. 7 produced a residential certificate and an inquiry found her to be a resident of the area. However, no documentary evidence was annexed to substantiate this claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Anganwadi Worker for the Pachim Amguri Anganwadi Centre is illegal and liable to be interfered with, in violation of the advertisement dated 19.10.2012 and the Government guidelines dated 16.06.2012, specifically concerning the residency requirement for candidates, as per condition No. 2 of the advertisement and the notification of the Social Welfare Department. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that respondent No. 7 is not a resident of the concerned Anganwadi Centre area, which disqualifies her appointment based on the advertisement's conditions and government guidelines. The petitioner relied on condition No. 2 of the advertisement and the notification dated 16.06.2012 issued by the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department. Revenue/State's arguments: The State respondents contended that respondent No. 7 produced a residential certificate issued by the competent authority, confirming her residency in the Pachim Amguri (2nd Part) Mini Anganwadi Centre area. They further submitted that an inquiry conducted by the CDPO found respondent No. 7 to be a resident of the said area, rendering the petitioner's grievance unsubstantiated.