WP(C) 1126/2010. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberWP(C) 1126/2010
Judgement DateJuly 14, 2019
CourtGauhati High Court

I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

(High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

WP( C) No.1126 of 2010

Smti Nijora Devi

............ Petitioner

- Versus –

The State of Assam and others

........ Respondents

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE A.M. BUJOR BARUA

For the petitioner: Mr. J. Roy, Adv

For the respondents: Mr.T.C.Chutia, State Counsel.

Date of Hearing : 14.07.2017.

Date of Judgment: 14.07.2017.

JUDGMENT & ORDER ( ORAL)

Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

  1. Office note dated 18.03.2013 indicates that AD card in respect of the respondent No.6 had been received back and as such, the matter is ready as regards service. Although a subsequent office note dated 19.03.2013 states that two numbers of affidavits in opposition have been filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 6, but on a close perusal, it is seen that no such affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.6. The affidavit in opposition referred in the office note dated 19.03.2013 is in fact an affidavit in opposition filed by a respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.1199/ 2010, which is a different writ petition than from the present writ petition. As such, it is construed that no such affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.6 in this writ petition. Office

    note also does not indicate that anybody has appeared for the respondent No.6. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate that the matter can be taken up for final consideration as the respondent No.6 had not appeared in spite of notice being duly served upon her.

  2. The writ petitioner assails an order of appointment of the respondent No.6 Nitu Moni Borah as an Anganwadi Worker in the No.44 Salpara Mini Anganwadi Center situated at village Salpara. The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner is a resident of the jurisdictional area of the said No.44 Salpara Mini Anganwadi Center, but on the other hand, the respondent No.6 although had been appointed is not a resident within the jurisdictional area of the said Anganwadi Center. I t is stated that the petitioner had duly participated in a selection process pursuant to an advertisement dated

    05.09.2009 and the petitioner being a resident of the jurisdictional area, ought to have been offered the appointment as an Anganwadi Worker. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the essential conditions of the advertisement is that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT