Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010077722024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2212/2024 REHANA BEGUM D/O- MD. ELIAS ALI, W/O- FAKHAR UDDIN, R/O- VILL- PANCHALI NO-2 (CHALABASTI), P.O- LASKAR PATHAR, P.S- LANKA, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782446 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOJAI PIN-782446 4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER DHALPUKHURI ICDS PROJECT HOJAI P.O P.S AND DIST. -HOJAI Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM PIN-782446 5:WAHIDA BEGUM WORKER OF MORAL BASTI ANGANWADI CENTRE AND SURVEYOR OF CHALABASTI JANPAR ANGANWADI CENTRE W/O- ABDUL MALEKH R/O- PACHIM DABLONG P.S- LANKA P.O- LASKAR PATHAR DIST. -HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782446 6:TASLIMA KHATUN W/O- NEKIBUR RAHMAN R/O- PACHIM DABLONG P.S- LANKA P.O- LASKAR PATHAR DIST. -HOJAI ASSAM PIN-78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. M R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR S RAHMAN (r-6),MS. S PHUKAN (r-6) Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 17.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Government representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. I. Rahman, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 5 & 6. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the selection to the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 (Taslima Khatun), as an Anganwadi worker at Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding are noticed as below: - The Child Development Project Officer, Dhalpukhuri ICDS Project had issued an advertisement dated 10.01.2023, inviting applications for filling up of the post of Anganwadi worker as well as Anganwadi Helper in various Centres existing under the said ICDS project. The post of Anganwadi worker, as vacant in the Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre was also included in the recruitment process. The petitioner being eligible had submitted her application for engagement as Anganwadi worker in Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre. The respondent no. 6 had also submitted her application for the said post. On completion of the selection process, the respondent authorities proceeded to engage the respondent no. 6 herein, against the post of Anganwadi worker. The petitioner, alleging that the respondent no. 6 was not a resident within the area covered by the Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre and further, contending that her name was so included in the survey register by the respondent no. 5 illegally, had instituted the present proceeding, assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6. Page No.# 4/6 4. Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed herein above, has submitted that the respondent no. 6 is a residence of village Pachim Dablong and she not having resided within the coverage area of Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre, which is located at Village No. 2 Panchali, was not entitled to be considered for engagement as a Anganwadi worker of the said Centre. Mr. Roshid, further submits that the residence of the petitioner falls within the coverage of the said Aganwadi Centre and accordingly, she was eligible to be so considered for engagement against the said Centre. However, on account of the illegality committed by the respondent no. 5 in including the name of the respondent no. 6 in the survey register illegally, the respondent no. 6 came to be considered for appointment against the post of Anganwadi worker existing in the Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre and accordingly, she, on her selection, came to be appointed as Anganwadi worker of the said Centre. 5. Mr. Roshid, learned counsel, further submits that the residents residing within the coverage area of the said Anganwadi Centre had submitted complaints before the respondent authorities against the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6, however, the same was not considered. Accordingly, in the above premises, Mr. Roshid submits that the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 6 would mandate interference with a further direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as the Anganwadi worker in Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre in accordance with her merit position obtained in the selection. 6. Per contra, Mr. I. Rahman, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 5 & 6 has submitted that the name of the respondent no. 6 was included in the survey register by the respondent no. 5 strictly, in accordance with the procedure mandated to be complied with in this connection. It is submitted that the respondent no. 5, on finding the residence of the respondent no. 6 to fall within the coverage area of the Anganwadi Centre, her name was included in the survey register. Mr. Rahman has further submitted that the respondent no. 6 being eligible for being considered for appointment as Anganwadi worker against the Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre, she was so selected Page No.# 5/6 basing on her merit and consequently, appointed against the post in question. It is submitted that the respondent no. 6 is continuing to discharge her duties as an Aganwadi worker in the said Centre. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The facts noticed herein above are not disputed. The issue arising in the present proceeding is as to whether the residence of the petitioner is situated within the coverage area of the Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre. While it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 6 does not reside within the coverage area of the said Anganwadi Certre, the respondent no. 5 & 6 have univocally submitted that the residence of the respondent no. 6 falls within the coverage area of the said Anganwadi Centre. 9. The State respondents have not filed any affidavit in the matter and accordingly, the stand of the State respondents in the matter is not discernible. 10. In view of the rival submissions of the parties to the proceeding, a dispute has arisen with regard to the situs of residence of the respondent no. 6 and as to whether, the same falls within the coverage area of the said Aganwadi Centre. 11. The materials available on record would not permit this Court to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the said issue. For determination of the said issue, evidences would require to be adduced and further proper survey would also be required to be made, which would not be permissible in a proceeding instituted in a writ petition basing on the affidavits filed by the parties. 12. In view of the above position, this Court directs the petitioner herein, to submit a representation before the Director, Women & Child Development, Assam, and therein, bring on record materials towards establishing the allegation raised that the residence of the respondent no. 6 falls beyond the coverage area of the Anganwadi Centre in question. 13. The Director, Women & Child Development, Assam, on receipt of such Page No.# 6/6 representation from the petitioner, shall schedule a date of hearing and issue notices in the matter to the petitioner, the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 6 and the authorities of the Dhalpukhuri, ICDS Project including its CDPO and thereafter, upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, determine the issue as to whether the residence of the respondent no. 6 falls within the coverage area of the Chababasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre. Basing on the outcome of the hearing and also the determination of the issue as to whether the residence of the respondent no. 6 falls within the coverage area of the Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre, appropriate order(s) as would be called for in the matter be passed by the Director, Women & Child Development, Assam. 14. It is provided that for the purpose of determining the issue as to whether the residence of the respondent no. 6 falls within the coverage area of Chalabasti Janpar Anganwadi Centre, the Director, Women & Child Development, Assam, is at liberty to seek the assistance of the District Administration, Hojai. 15. The exercise now required to be carried out for compliance of the directions passed herein above, be initiated and concluded with the passing of the speaking order within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the representation required to be submitted by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this order. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant