Skip to content
Home » Mira Hazarika v. State of Assam, ICL 2021 (7) Gau. 648

Mira Hazarika v. State of Assam, ICL 2021 (7) Gau. 648

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/3030/2021

MIRA HAZARIKA
VILL- 2 NO NAHARBARI, P.O.-MAZBAT, PIN-784507, DIST-UDLAGURI
(ASSAM)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR-
781006 (ASSAM)

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDALGURI DISTRICT
BTAD
ASSAM

3:INCHARGE OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
DIST-UDALGURI
BTAD
ASSAM

4:ECECUTIVE MEMBER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
KOKRAJHAR
BTAD
ASSAM

5:SMTI. DIPTI GOGOI (C.D.P.O.)
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT
MAZBAT
UDALGURI
BTAD (ASSAM)
Page No.# 2/5

6:JANGILA DAIMARI (CHAIRMAN)
VILL- NO. 1 NAHARBARI
P.O.-MAZBAT
P.S.-MAZBAT
DIST-UDALGURI
BTR
ASSAM
PIN-784507

7:JOTHISH KALITA (MEMBER)
VILL-PATHAKPUR
P.O.-PATHAKPUR
P.S.-MAZBAT
DIST-UDALGURI
BTR
ASSAM
PIN-784507

8:AMIO MAHATO
MAZBAT SANGHOT SISU UNNAYAN PROKOLPO
P.O.-MAZBAT
P.S.-MAZBAT
DIST-UDLAGURI
BTR
ASSAM
PIN-78450

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P HAZARIKA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

ORDER

Date : 13-07-2021 Heard Mr. R. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State of Assam and Mrs. R. Bora, learned standing counsel for BTAD.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that she has applied for appointment to the Page No.# 3/5 vacant post of Anganwadi Helper under Child Development Project Mazbat VCDL’s Centre No. 18617030302.

3) It is projected that there were several illegalities committed in the selection process. It is further projected from Annexure-3 to the writ petition that the Chairman of the Child Development Project, Mazbat had informed the petitioner that she was selected for the said post. However, on 07.01.2021, the authorities had surreptitiously completed the appointment procedure secretly and by appointing the others the petitioner was deprived of being appointed to the post of Anganwadi Helper.

4) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved by her non selection and non appointment, the petitioner had submitted representation dated 12.02.2021 before the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri and thereafter, on 15.02.2021 to the District Social Welfare Development, Udalguri and to the Executive Member, Social Welfare Department, Kokrajhar and to the Member of Parliament No. 8 Mangaldoi Parliament Constituency, on 17.02.2021 the Chairman, ICDE, Mazbat, Minister of Finance for the State on 21.02.2021. However, no action has been taken by the State Govt. authorities on those representations. Moreover, it is submitted that the State respondents, remaining silent and none responsive to her representations are sufficient for drawing inference that the appointments have been arbitrary made without following the due procedure. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-8, which is a news item appearing in newspaper regarding reaction by one Executive Member regarding illegalities of corruption in the appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in ICDP Mazbat.

5) Referring to Annexure- 10 of the writ petition, it is submitted that one beneficiary was appointed with a condition that the selection procedure may be changed as per the direction of this Court or other Subordinate Courts. Accordingly, it is that submitted that the said condition discloses that there was a writ petition pending before this Court and that despite a pending writ petition, an appointment order was passed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the entire selection process was Page No.# 4/5 based on various discrepancies and it is submitted that the appointments made in respect of the Centre in question is liable to set aside and interfered with.

6) The learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate as well as the learned standing counsel BTAD has made their respective submissions.

7) On a perusal of the statements made in the writ petition, the Court is of the considered opinion the by mere use of words that the appointment made was illegal would not be sufficient for interference of this Court on the appointments made. Firstly, because the selected candidates have not been made parties in the writ petition, although the appointments were made on 22.03.2019 as revealed from Annexure -10 to the writ petition. Secondly, the representation by the petitioner discloses that the Chairman of the CDPO (respondent no.6) had informed the petitioner that she has been appointed whereas no appointment letter was issued by them and, as such, the petitioner only appears to have a right to be aggrieved by the incorrect statements made to her by respondent no.6. However, the Court is unable to accept the private communication by respondent no.6 was in any manner an official communication. Hence, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy of claiming damages or compensation, if any, from the concerned person who has misguided him with a false statement that the petitioner had been selected and appointed. The same may be done in an appropriate Court for seeking the remedies available in the law.

8) In the further considered opinion of the Court, in the pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure, basic facts are required to be pleaded and not the law, and the facts must be stated in the plaint and/or in the written statement. However, in a writ petition or in a counter affidavit, not only facts are required to be pleaded, but also the evidence in proof of such facts has to be pleaded and annexed to the writ petition or counter affidavit.

9) In the present case in hand, the petitioner has not been able to provide evidence in proof of statement made by the Chairman of the petitioner being selected and appointed. Therefore, the point that is raised in the present writ petition is not Page No.# 5/5 entertainable. Nonetheless, the Court has perused the writ petition and annexures appended thereto to understand the stand taken by the petitioner and it is found that the stand taken by the petitioner is devoid of any merit. In the event anyone wants any authority on the point of pleadings and evidence in the writ petition, the case of Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 434; AIR 1988 SC 2181 may be referred to.

10) The other point taken by the petitioner is that the appointments were made despite another writ petition being pending. In that context the Court is of the conceded opinion that if anybody would be aggrieved by appointment made by despite pendency of any writ petition, it would only be the concerned writ petitioner. A mere pendency of writ petition does not create a right in rem so as to give the benefit to all prospective litigants who were not the present before Court at that point of time when the selection and appointment was made. Thus, the pendency of the writ petition in respect of selection process cannot be a ground to assail the correctness of the appointment made after two years of such appointment been made. Moreover, the petitioner has not provided the number of the alleged writ petition and in this regard the stand of the petitioner is that she is inferring that there might be a writ petition pending because the appointment letter contains reference to the effect that appointment letter may be changed as per direction of this court or other Subordinate Courts. Thus, the petitioner is not certain if any previous writ petition was pending.

11) Accordingly in the absence of concerned parties who have been appointed to the pursuant to the selection process, the petitioner is not found entitled to any relief.

12) Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed without issuance notice on the respondents.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]