Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010191902020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Review.Pet./136/2023 STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT ERSTWHILE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 2: THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. UZANBAZAR GHY- 1. 3: THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787052. 4: THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER ICDS PROJECT DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787055. 5: THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787055. VERSUS NAYANMONI HAZARIKA AND ORS W/O- SRI DILIP HAZARIKA R/O VILL.- DAKHIN PITHIYAL P.O. and P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA Page No.# 2/9 DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. DAKHIN PITHIYAL ANGANWADI CENTRE UNDER DHAKUAKHANA ICDS PROJECT DHAKUAKHANA 2:DEBOTI DOLEY W/O- SRI BHABESH PEGU R/O- SANTIPUR JOIRAMPUR BHAGHDHARA P.O.- MODARGURI P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. JOYRAMPUR BAGHDHARA ANGANWADI CENTRE UNDER DHAKUAKHANA ICDS PROJECT DHAKUAKHNA. 3:GOLAPI HAZARIKA W/O- SRI BAKUL HAZARIKA R/O- DAKSHIN PITHIAL P.O.- MATOMORA P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787055. 4:PHULKUMARI PEGU W/O- SRI DEBAJIT PEGU R/O- JAIRAMPUR BHAGHDHARA P.O.- MODARGURI P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787055. ------------ Advocate for : MR. D NATH Advocate for : MR. J KALITA (R-1) appearing for NAYANMONI HAZARIKA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 28-05-2025 Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the Review petitioner. Page No.# 3/9 Also heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the opposite parties/writ petitioners No.1 and 2 and Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4. 2. This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 2092/2015. 3. The opposite parties/writ petitioners have filed the WP(C) 2092/2015, challenging the order dated 16.02.2015, by which the engagement of opposite parties/writ petitioners as Anganwadi Workers in respect of Joyrampur Bagdhora and Dakhin Pithiyal Anganwadi Centres were cancelled. 4. This Court vide order dated 17.12.2019, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of cancellation dated 16.02.2015 with a cost of Rs.10,000/- each on the then CDPO who had issued the orders dated 16.02.2015, thereby, setting aside the cancellation order as no reasons were found to have discerned for effecting such cancellation and the reasons stated were unfounded and misleading. 5. It is the contention of the review petitioner that the orders dated 16.02.2015 by which the appointment of the writ petitioners were cancelled, was in compliance with the order of this Court dated 27.06.2013 passed in WP(C) 2324/2013. By the said order, this Court has passed a positive direction directing the CDPO, Dhakuakhana ICDS Project, Lakhimpur to issue engagement orders to the writ petitioners including the opposite parties No.3 and 4. 6. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the review petitioner submits that there are only two posts of Anganwadi Worker in Joirampur Bagdhora and Dakhin Pithiyal Anganwadi Centres, whereas, this Court has directed in the WP(C) 2324/2013 vide order dated 27.06.2013 to issue engagement order in favour of the opposite parties No.3 and Page No.# 4/9 4. In compliance of the said order, the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have to be appointed, for which the appointment of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 had to be cancelled. 7. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2019, this Court has failed to consider and appreciate that in the selection process, in respect of above two Anganwadi Centres, the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 applied for the same and the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 have also offered their candidatures. As there is only one post of Anganwadi Worker in each Anganwadi Centre, when this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.06.2013 in WP(C) 2324/2013 has directed appointment of the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 in respect of the said two Anganwadi Centres only by cancelling the appointment of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, the Opposite party No.3 and 4 could only be appointed in the above two Anganwadi Centres. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Hon’ble Court, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.12.2019 is liable to be reviewed. 8. Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that this Hon’ble Court has failed to appreciate the fact that for appoitnmnet as Anganwadi Hellper or Anganwadi Worker, a candidate has to be local resident of the area where the Anganwadi Centere is situated and they cannot be appointed in another Anganwadi Centre. As the above two Anganwadi Centres have already consist of Anganwadi Workers each, it was not possible for the authorities to appoint the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 without removing the persons who are holding the posts, therefore, the judgment dated 17.12.2019 is liable to be reviewed suitably. 9. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2/writ petitioners, while opposing the review petition, submits that the order of Hon’ble Hon’ble Court dated 27.06.2013 in WP(C) 2324/2013, was duly perused by this Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 2092/2015 and has held that the Page No.# 5/9 Hon’ble Court has not noticed any such direction to cancel the appointment of the petitioners nor any such direction has discernible in the communication of the Director to the CDPO. This Court having found that the cancellation of the appointment of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 having been found illegal, the same was set aside and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-each on the then CDPO, who had passed the orders dated 16.02.2015 cancelling the appointment orders of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. He submits that there is no ground for review of the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019. Moreover, the review petition is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after a lapse of nearly four years. Therefore, the present Review Petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel, however, having argued above, fairly submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the determination of who is entitled to be legally appointed as Anganwadi Workers in Joirampur Bagdhora and Dakhin Pithiyal Anganwadi Centres in view of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 27.06.2013 passed in WP(C) 2324/2013, it would be appropriate to adjudicate the issue by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, he submits that this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate order as deem fit. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order dated 27.06.2013 and judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 2324/202013 and WP(C) 2092/2015. 12. Admittedly, this Court directed the respondent authorities to issue necessary consequential engagement orders in favour of the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 in WP(C) 2324/2013 within a period of one month. The respondent authorities in compliance of the said order of this Court and having considered that without the cancellation of the appointment orders of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, it would not be possible to comply the Court’s order, have passed the cancellation order dated 16.02.2015, cancelling the appointment of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It is noticed that in the said writ petition, Page No.# 6/9 the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were not arrayed as party respondents. 13. By the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019, this Court after perusal of the order dated 27.06.2013, has observed that the said order was passed as because the respondents had failed to provide necessary information to the Court as to why the petitioners therein were not appointed. Accordingly, a direction was issued to issue necessary consequential engagement orders to the petitioners therein as Anganwadi Worker in their respective Anganwadi Centres. This Court has also taken note that although there was a direction to issue consequential engagement orders to the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4, but there was no such order requiring the authorities to cancel the appointment order already made in favour of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Further, this Court has observed that no such direction by this Court to cancel the appointment of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is noticed. This Court also found nothing adverse against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the enquiry report dated 29.01.2011. Accordingly, the cancellation order dated 16.02.2015 of the CDPO by which the appointment of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were cancelled have been set aside and quashed by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- each on the then CDPO, who passed the orders dated 16.02.2015. 14. On consideration of the grounds of review, this Court finds that technically, same lacks ground to review the judgment dated 17.12.2019 in WP(C) 2092/2015. However, considering that this Court appears to have not considered the issue as to who would be entitled to be legally appointed as Anganwadi Workers in the Joirampur Bagdhora and Dakhin Pithiyal Anganwadi Centres, I am of the considered view that the issue needs to be adjudicated upon considering the fact that this Court earlier had passed an order on 27.06.2013 in WP(C) 2324/2013, directing the respondent authorities to issue necessary consequential engagement orders in respect of the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4. Page No.# 7/9 15. In the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India BCCI –vs- Netaji Cricket Club reported in 2005 4 SCC 741, by referring to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has held that an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. A mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of undertaking may also call for review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exist sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The word “sufficient reason” are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” 16. Lily Thomas reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice if the court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which infact did not exist and its perpetration shall results in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. 17. It is trite that the Court of review has already limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used under the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908. It may allow a review on three specific grounds, i.e. discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and for any other sufficient reason. The Page No.# 8/9 words ‘any other sufficient reason’ must mean a reason sufficient on grounds, atleast analogous to those specified in the rule but the said rule is not universal. 18. It would not be correct to say that the Court while exercising its review jurisdiction in any situation whatsoever cannot take into consideration even a subsequent event. Although, the review jurisdiction would be exercised not only upon discovery of new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record, but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason, it cannot denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedure or technicalities cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. 19. Reverting back to the present case, having considered the peculiar situation that has arisen in view of the above two orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions (supra), this Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition may not be technically a ground for review, however, same appears to have been passed for erroneous assumption, which if not reviewed, would result in miscarriage of justice as the claims and counter claims of the parties with regard to the right of appointment of Anganwadi Workers in the Joirampur Bagdhora and Dakhin Pithiyal Anganwadi Centres would fall within the meaning of other sufficient reason, which deserves to be adjudicated in the writ petition being WP(C) 2092/2015. 20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 2092/2015 deserves review. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 2092/2015 is recalled in so far as it pertains to the setting aside of orders dated 16.02.2015. Thus, the writ petition being WP(C) 2092/2015 is restored. It is made clear that cost imposed by the Court Page No.# 9/9 is not interfered with as the same has stated to have been already complied with. 21. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, let the WP(C) 2092/2015 listed after 3 (three) weeks for hearing. 22. The review petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant