Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010234992024 2025:GAU-AS:9223- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/394/2024 ASMA KHATUN D/O ABDUL MOTALLEB, R/O VILL- SILGHAGRI PT-I, P.S.-DHUBRI, DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM), PIN-783324 VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY AND 3 ORS TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UJANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 3:DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DHUBRI P.O.-DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI PIN-783301 4:THE CHILD DEVELEOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER GAURIPUR ICDS PROJECT DHARMASALA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, MR. A KHALEK Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the State along with Ms. N. Devi, learned counsel. 2. By filing this intra-court appeal, the appellant, who is the writ petitioner in WP(C) 7502 of 2022 has assailed the dismissal of the writ petition by the by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2024. 3. In the said writ petition, the appellant had prayed for setting aside and quashing of the two impugned advertisements dated 08.07.2022 and 18.07.2022, issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO for short), Gauripur ICDS project, (respondent No. 4), and for a direction to the Respondent Authorities to fill up vacancies in the post of Anganwadi Workers by way of direct recruitment, keeping 25% reservation for promotion. 4. The appellant projects herself to be a Higher Secondary pass candidate and claims to be eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the direct recruitment process. The case of the appellant is that the two advertisements were specifically for upgradation/ promotion of those Anganwadi Helpers who had been in continuous service for more than 10 years. Out of 20 vacant posts, 17 posts were reserved for promotion from Anganwadi Helpers to Anganwadi Workers, leaving only 3 posts available for direct recruitment. The Page No.# 3/7 learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said recruitment process initiated vide the said two impugned advertisements violated the provisions outlined in a communication dated 06.10.2006 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, which envisages that only 25% of the posts for Anganwadi Workers were required to be filled through promotion, and thus, the remaining 75% posts should be filled up through direct recruitment. 5. Referring to the notification dated 04.03.2013, issued by the Social Welfare Department, Government of Assam, it is submitted that the said notification provides guidelines to implement the hereinbefore referred communication dated 06.10.2006, issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of India. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said two advertisements violated the guidelines dated 04.03.2013 as well as the communication of the Ministry of Women and Child Development dated 06.10.2006 and did not fulfil the required quota for promotion/ upgradation and thereby, the advertisement for the 17 vacant posts of Anganwadi Workers, was in violation of the established recruitment norms. 7. Therefore, as the learned Single Judge had upheld the recruitment process as being in compliance with the local ICDS project’s requirements, the appellant, being aggrieved by the said decision, has filed this intra-court appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the grounds of appeal and has referred to the various annexures to the Memo of Appeal in support of his submissions. The main thrust of submissions is to the effect that the clubbing of the entire cadre of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers Page No.# 4/7 in the particular ICDS project is erroneous, being contrary to the communication dated 06.10.2006 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. He submits that the reservation of 25% for the Anganwadi Workers should be from the vacancies which arise after notification dated 04.03.2013 and should not cover the entire cadre of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers. 9. Per contra, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, by referring to the additional affidavit filed pursuant to order dated 23.05.2025, has submitted that in the entire Gauripur ICDS project, there are 400 posts of Anganwadi Workers and equal posts of 400 Anganwadi helpers. It is envisage that each Anganwadi Centre would be having one Anganwadi Helper and one Anganwadi Worker respectively. Accordingly, it is submitted that 25% reservation in each centre wise cannot arise and the persons who are eligible to apply for upgradation to Anganwadi Helpers is required to be confined only to those Anganwadi Workers who reside in the same revenue village and therefore, Anganwadi Helpers from outside the revenue village in question cannot apply for their upgradation in an Anganwadi Centre as Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, it is submitted that under the Anganwadi Centres in Assam, the appointment of CDPOs is not made revenue village-wise. Therefore, under the notification dated 04.03.2013, it is envisaged that the 25% reservation is to be culled out from out of the total cadre strength of Anganwadi Helpers under the Gauripur ICDS project. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the cadre strength of Anganwadi Helpers is 400, the upgradation route can only be permissible for 100 posts. It is also submitted that if a vacancy arises in a particular Anganwadi Centre and suitable candidates are not available for being upgraded from Anganwadi Helper to Anganwadi Worker, such posts can only be filled up through direct recruitment. 10. Referring to paragraph 2 of the said additional affidavit, it is submitted Page No.# 5/7 that the specific stand of the Additional Director, Women and Child Development Department is that 75% quota of the Anganwadi Workers, which is required to be filled up through direct recruitment, is already saturated. It is submitted that presently 20 numbers of posts have been occupied by promotees and all together 335 numbers of posts of Anganwadi workers are being occupied by direct recruitees. In respect of 45 existing vacancies at that point of time, in respect of Anganwadi Workers, the competent authorities have taken the following steps, viz., (1) proposals have been sent for approval to the directorate office is for 17 numbers of posts; (2) proposal already sent for upgradation has been sent to the directorate office for 7 numbers of posts; (3) new advertisement for direct recruitment after no eligible helper was found for upgradation is 10 numbers; (4) advertisement for upgradation has been issued for 1 post; and (5) new vacant positions are 10 numbers. 11. Accordingly, it is submitted that in order to effectively maintain the ratio of direct recruitment and promotees to 75%:25%, the total cadre strength of the Anganwadi Workers are taken into consideration, which is subject to direct recruitment in respect of 25% reserved post only when suitable candidates are otherwise not available. 12. The learned Single Judge, having considered the notification dated 04.03.2013, has accepted the contention of the State that in respect of the filling-up the posts of Anganwadi Workers, in the ratio of 75%:25%, would be so reckoned ICDS project wise. Moreover, after analysis of the materials available on record, the learned Single Judge has also held that the post of Anganwadi Worker existing within an ICDS project is required to be filled up both by way of direct recruitment as well as by way of promotion /upgradation, in the ratio of 75%:25%. Therefore, in absence of any specific challenge being Page No.# 6/7 made to the notification dated 04.03.2013, the learned Single Judge has held that the challenge made in the present writ petition as to the manner of recruitment being undertaken by the notification dated 08.07.2022 and 18.07.2022 cannot be countenanced. 13. Accordingly, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is that the advertisement dated 08.07.2022 and 18.07.2022, being for recruitment of 17 posts of Anganwadi Workers was held to be permissible, as the mandated promotion/ upgradation against the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Gauripur ICDS project has not been fulfilled. 14. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the submissions in reply made by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, the Court is of the considered opinion that vide the notification No. SWD.107/2007/81 dated 04.03.2013, issued by the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Assam, having given the responsibility to the CDPOs to determine the vacancy and advertise them calling for applications from eligible Anganwadi helpers, with prior permission of the Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Assam, the vacancies to be filled up would be relatable to the cadre strength within the jurisdiction of the concerned CDPO. The Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the cadre strength could be bifurcated to mean cadre strength which existed prior to 04.03.2013 and a separate cadre strength, which came into existence on and from 04.03.2013. Therefore, the reservation envisaged for the Anganwadi Helpers to the extent of 25% as envisaged vide the said notification dated 04.03.2013, must be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength under the Gauripur ICDS project. Therefore, as the stand of the State is that the 75% quota of the Anganwadi Helpers which is required to be filled up through direct Page No.# 7/7 recruitment is already saturated, the Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that if the suitable persons from Anganwadi Workers are not found to fill up the 25% quota for promotion /upgradation, only then those posts can be filled up by way of direct recruitment. 15. Under such circumstances, we find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this intra-court appeal fails and resultantly, this intra-court appeal is dismissed. 16. Under the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant