Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010012972026 2026:GAU-AS:7252 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/47/2026 SHAHINA BEGUM WIFE OF MONIRUL ALOM MOLLAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SATSHIYA KHAMAR (PAMERBALA), P.O.- KHALISABHITA, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN -783330 VERSUS ABDUL JOLIL THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, LAKHIPUR ICDS PROJECT, GOALPARA, DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M MONDAL, MR N SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D NATH, MR. G ANTHONY,R SAHIINII BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 25.05.2026 This contempt petition had been filed by the applicant, who is the petitioner in WP(C) 158/2025, alleging violation of the order dated 10.1.2025 passed in the writ petition. It has been alleged that despite the order passed by Page No.# 2/3 this Court on 10.01.2025, providing for the selection process for the post of Anganwadi helper in the Pamerbala Anganwadi Center to proceed by allowing the petitioner also to participate, it was further directed that the final result in respect of the Centre shall not be declared till the returnable date. However, the respondent authorities have declared the result on 15.12.2025 and subsequently, an appointment order was also issued on the same day, thereby violating the interim order passed by this Court. 2. The relevant portion of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.1.2025 is reproduced below for ease of reference: “ 7. On perusal of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, it has prima facie emerged that to be engaged as Anganwadi Helper, a candidate should have the educational qualification of HSLC/AHM from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam or equivalent examination from a recognized Board by the Government of Assam. The petitioner has passed the All India Secondary School Examination in the year 2012 from the Central Board of Secondary Education [CBSE], Delhi. Prima facie, the petitioner has a qualification equivalent to HSLC/AHM from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. In such view of the matter, rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that the Central Board of Secondary Education [CBSE] is a non-recognized Board Prima facie suggestive of an arbitrary act. In such view of the matter, as an interim measure, the respondent no. 5 is directed to accept the application of the petitioner for consideration for the post of Anganwadi Helper in respect of Pamerbala Anganwadi Centre and shall allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process. It is further ordered that selection process shall be proceeded with but the final results in respect of Pamerbala Anganwadi Centre shall not be declared till the returnable date.” (emphasis added). 3. Notices having been issued to the sole respondent, namely the incumbent Page No.# 3/3 holding the post of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Mr. D Nath, Learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, has entered an appearance today on behalf of the departmental authorities. Upon instructions, he has submitted that the order dated 10.1.2025 had not been brought to the notice of the concerned CDPO or the Director, Women and Child Development, Assam. Therefore, the order dated 15.12.2025 had been issued inadvertently, due to a lack of information and knowledge. 4. The learned Sr. Govt. Advocate has submitted that the above officials involved in the process of issuing the appointment letters tender their apologies for the oversight, and that appropriate steps have already been taken by withdrawing the appointment letter issued. The concerned dealing assistant who had failed to bring the orders of this Court to the notice of the authorities when the files were being processed has also been required to show cause. The relevant official communications and orders have been produced before this Court, which are kept on record, marked as “X”, “Y” and “Z”. 5. In the circumstances aforesaid, I am inclined to accept the apology tendered by the Director and the CDPO concerned, since it appears that the violation of the orders was not intentional. Accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant