Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010233272016 2026:GAU-AS:8677 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6913/2016 SUMA RANI DAS W/O. BIMAL DAS, D/O. SARBASH CH. DAS, VILL. MERUA BASTI, P.O. KATHAL T.E., DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN. 788005. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPERSENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM BAL BHAWAN UZAN BAZAR GUWAHATI -7. 3:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR PIN. 788005. 4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER CDPO SILCHAR ICDS PROJECT SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR. Page No.# 2/10 5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR PIN. 788001. 6:MITU SINHA W/O. RANJAN SINHA VILL. CHINECOORI P.O. CHINECOORI SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR PIN. 788007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S HOQUE, MR.M H TALUKDAR,MR.A R SIKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR.B K SARMASC, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT.R.-1-4, MR I AHMED,,GA, ASSAM(R.-5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. A R Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Chakraborty, Learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. I Ahmed, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6. 2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to the selection and appointment of the Respondent Page No.# 3/10 No. 6, as Anganwadi Worker in 273 No. Merua West Anganwadi Centre. 3. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has projected that she was initially engaged as an Anganwadi Helper, temporarily for 3 (Three) months at 130 No. Awatilla East Anganwadi Centre, subject to approval of the appropriate authority, vide a communication dated 02.11.2007, issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Silchar ICDS Project (Rural), Cachar. It is further projected that on a request made by the Respondent authorities, the father of the Petitioner had donated a plot of land for establishing an Anganwadi Centre at Merua Gram, Bhajantipur, Part-III, Ward No. 7. It was further projected that an assurance was given to appoint the Petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Centre. The donation of the land being made, 273 No. Merua West Anganwadi Centre, came to be established over the said plot of land. The Petitioner contends that in the year 2010, a notification was issued inviting applications for filling up of the post of Anganwadi Worker and Helper in 273 No. Merua West Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner submitted her application for engagement against the post of Page No.# 4/10 Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre. However, it is projected that the Respondent authorities, without taking the process of recruitment, initiated, in the year 2010, to its logical conclusion, had proceeded to appoint the Respondent No. 6, as an Anganwadi Worker in 273 No. Merua West Anganwadi Centre. It was further projected that the Respondent No. 6, did not reside within the coverage area of the Anganwadi Centre and/or in the village, wherein, the Anganwadi Centre is so situated. Accordingly, being aggrieved, the Petitioner had instituted the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. A R Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that there was no transparency maintained in the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 6. He submits that the Respondent No. 6 being a resident, outside the coverage area of the Anganwadi Centre, and/or the village, wherein, the Anganwadi Centre is so located, she was not an eligible to submit her candidature for selection against the said post, in pursuance to the notification dated 31.08.2007. 5. Mr. A R Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further Page No.# 5/10 submits that the notification dated 31.08.2007, was not proceeded with by the Respondent authorities and no select list came to be published, prior to the engagement of the Respondent No. 6, as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre. Accordingly, he submits that the appointment of the Respondent No. 6, being dehors the procedure, mandated for the purpose, the same would mandate an interference from this Court. 6. Mr. A R Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that the father of the Petitioner, having donated the land, wherein, the said Anganwadi Centre is presently located, a right had accrued to the Petitioner for having her case considered for engagement as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre. 7. Mr. A Chakraborty, Learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, submits that in absence of any instructions, being received by him in the matter, he is not in a position to make his submissions. 8. Mr. I Ahmed, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, Page No.# 6/10 at the outset, had submitted that an affidavit, on behalf of the Respondents represented by him, was submitted in the year, 2024. However, the said affidavit is not found to be on record and Mr. A R Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that a copy, thereof, was not furnished to him. Mr. I Ahmed, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, by producing the engagement order of the Respondent No. 6, dated 04.03.2016, has submitted that the Respondent No. 6, was so engaged, on the basis of the merit list, published by the Selection Committee, in pursuance to the notice published for the said engagement. He has also furnished a copy of the select list. Mr. I Ahmed, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, accordingly, submitted that the engagement of the Respondent No. 6, as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, being in pursuance to a selection held for the same, would not mandate any interference. 9. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The claim of the Petitioner in the present Writ Page No.# 7/10 Petition, is that the Respondent No. 6, is not eligible to apply in pursuance to the notice issued for engagement as Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, as she was not a resident within the coverage area of the Anganwadi Centre and/or the resident of the village, wherein, the said Anganwadi Centre is so located. The Petitioner further claims that the process of recruitment, as initiated, vide the notification dated 31.08.2007, was not taken to its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the Petitioner projects that the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 6, to have been effected, dehors, the procedure mandated. 11. On the contrary, Mr. I Ahmed, Leaned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6, has submitted that in terms of the selection held, in pursuance to the notification dated 31.08.2007, the Respondent No. 6 was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the merit list prepared for the purpose, and it is on the basis of the merit position, obtained by her, that the Respondent No. 6 came to be engaged as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, vide the communication dated 04.03.2016. In absence of any material available on record, demonstrating the manner in which the selection was held, for engagement of the Respondent Page No.# 8/10 No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker, and the contradictory positions taken by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6, with regard to the selection process, initiated, in the matter, this Court is not in a position to conclusively arrive at a decision in the matter. 12. In view of the above decision, a disputed position emerging in the matter, it would not be permissible to be resolved by this Court, basing on the materials already available on record. At this stage, it is to be noted that although the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, had submitted that an affidavit was filed by him in the matter, on behalf of the Respondent No. 6, the said affidavit is not found on record and Mr. A R Sikdar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner had also submitted that a copy, thereof, was not furnished to him. 13. Accordingly, in view of the above position emanating in the matter, this Court, at this stage, would not interfere with the engagement, effected in respect of the Respondent No. 6. 14. The Petitioner is directed to submit a representation before the Director of Women & Child Development, Assam, staking a claim for being engaged as an Anganwadi Worker in Page No.# 9/10 the 273 No. Merua West Anganwadi Centre. The Petitioner in the said representation shall urge all grounds that have been urged in the present Writ Petition and the Petitioner shall also be at liberty to urge further grounds that may be available for her, to be so urged. 15. The Director of Women & Child Development, Assam, on receipt of the said representation, shall schedule a date of hearing and issue notices to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 6, as well as, the authorities of the ICDS Centre, wherein, the 273 No. Merua West Anganwadi Centre, is so operated. Thereafter, on hearing the parties to the proceedings, the Director shall pass a speaking order, dealing with all the contentions raised by the Petitioner, in her representation, as well as, the contentions that would now be raised before the Director of Women & Child Development, Assam, by Respondent No. 6, in the matter. 16. On conclusion of the hearing, in the event, the Director finds that the Respondent No. 6 engagement, was not so effected, by following the procedure mandated in this Page No.# 10/10 connection, he shall issue orders towards terminating such engagement of the Respondent No. 6, and thereafter, also determine the manner in which the engagement against as Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, is to be so effected. 17. The said exercise shall be initiated and concluded by the Director of Women & Child Development, Assam, within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order, from the Petitioner. 18. With the above observations and directions the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant