Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010061382026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1748/2026 PUJA DAS W/O-SOURAV DAS, R/O VILL-MAIZGRAM, P/O-MAIZGRAM,DIST.-SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788156 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and othrs TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY 6 2:THE DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY 01 3:THE ADDTIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (SW) DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DIST SRIBHUMI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ROY, M. HOSSAIN,MR. M H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that though the petitioner was selected in terms of an Advertisement dated 19.11.2025, issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Sribhumi, Assam, for the post of Psycho-Social Counselor, she has not given any appointment letter in terms of her selection. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in terms of the Advertisement dated 19.11.2025, issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Sribhumi for one post of Psycho-Social Counsellor, being qualified with the degree of Masters of Social Works, she applied for the same. Thereafter, she was duly selected and her name along with another candidate was forwarded to the respondent No. 2, i.e., The Director of Women & Child Development, Assam, vide minutes of interview dated 19.11.2025 for appointment in the post of Psycho- Social Counselor. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though she was selected after the interview and her name was forwarded, no appointment letter has been issued by the concerned authority till date. Page No.# 3/4 5. It is submitted that pursuant the aforesaid advertisement, a candidate for the post of Security Guard/ Night Guard, was duly selected and has already been appointed. 6. Mr. M. H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has the requisite degree in terms of the advertisement and having been duly selected, ought to have been appointed to the post of Psycho-Social Counselor. He submits that the petitioner has already acquired another degree, i.e., Diploma in Counselling Psychology, and the certificate of the same has already been submitted to the concerned authority. He further submits that since the petitioner has the required qualification of Masters in Social Works as well as Diploma in Counselling Psychology, she is qualified in terms of the Mission Shakti- Scheme Implementation Guidelines. Therefore, the respondent authorities have without any valid reason, illegally failed to appoint the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate for all the respondents referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities, submits that in terms of the Mission Shakti- Scheme Implementation Guidelines for the post of Psycho-Social Counselor, a professional degree/ diploma in psychology/ psychiatry/ neurosciences with a backrground in the health sector, preferably with at least 3 (three) years experience of working within a government or non-government health project/ programme at the District Level is necessary. He further submits that since the petitioner did not have any degree/ diploma in psychology/ psychiatry/ neurosciences, her appointment was not made. Page No.# 4/4 8. Learned Government Advocate for all the respondents submits that since the petitioner has already obtained the diploma in counselling psychology and the same has already been submitted to the respondent authority, the authority is required to verify the diploma that has been acquired by the petitioner. He further submits that since no candidate has been appointed to the aforesaid post of Psycho-Social Counsellor and the petitioner is presently having the requisite qualification, her case may be considered by the respondent authorities, subject to proper verification of diploma subsequently obtained by her. 9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties are in a agreement that the instant writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner, who has been duly selected by the Selection Committee and her name has already been forwarded for approval of appointment for necessary consideration. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of 45 (forty five) days from today by passing a necessary speaking order. 11. In terms of the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant