WA 37/2017. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WA 37/2017 |
| Judgement Date | November 21, 2017 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
WA No.37 of 2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AJI T SI NGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE MANOJI T BHUYAN
2 1 .1 1 .2 01 7
( Aj it Sin gh , C.J.)
Mr.AR Sikdar and Mr.MH Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.RKD Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.R Ali, and Ms.R Pegu, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.
This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated
6.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed WP(C) No.3060/ 2013 of Respondent No.5. The appellant is also aggrieved with the order dated 29.11.2016 whereby her Review Petition No.119/ 2015 has been dismissed.
The dispute is essentially between the appellant and Respondent No.5 over appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Dakshin Hashila Beel Anganwadi Centre, District Goalpara.
I n September, 2009, an advertisement was issued for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Dakshin Hashila Beel Anganwadi Centre. Both appellant and Respondent No.5 applied for that post. The competent authority then vide order dated 3.5.2010 appointed the appellant. Respondent No.5 challenged the appointment of appellant by filing WP(C) 5737/ 2009 alleging that she was not a resident of Anganwadi Centre Area and as such, her appointment was illegal. A learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 30.7.2007, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Director, Social Welfare Department to examine the grievance of Respondent No.5 by making necessary enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the Director, vide order dated 8.11.2010, terminated the appellant from the post of Anganwadi Worker. Later,
by another order dated 10.12.2010, the Child Development Project Officer also passed a similar order of termination against the appellant. I n the result, the post of Anganwadi Worker became vacant.
After more than 1½ years i.e. on 25.10.2012, a fresh advertisement for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker in the same Centre was issued. I nterestingly, both appellant and respondent No.5 again applied for the post and participated in the selection process. The selection committee, after examining all the candidates, awarded
59.88 marks to the appellant and 45.16 marks to Respondent No.5. Since the appellant secured highest marks, the competent authority vide order dated 8.1.2014, appointed her as Anganwadi Worker in the advertised Centre. Pursuant to the appointment order dated 8.1.2014, the appellant immediately...
To continue reading
Request your trial