JUDGMENT :

The extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by making a challenge to an order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Director, Social Welfare whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the Uttar Bagoriguri Mini Anganwadi Centre has been held to be not sustainable. Such order has been passed pursuant to an order dated 23.09.2014 passed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation instituted by the petitioner being WP(C) No.4957/2014.

2. The tussle is between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 with regard to appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the Uttar Bagoriguri Mini Anganwadi Centre. However, before going to the issue raised in this petition, it would be convenient to state the brief facts of the case.

3. The petitioner claimed to be a permanent resident within the newly created Uttar Bagoriguri Mini Anganwadi Centre under the jurisdiction of the Child Development Project Officer, Majuli ICDS Project, Jorhat. Pursuant to a recruitment drive to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide an advertisement dated 13.06.2013, the petitioner, who had the necessary qualification had applied for the same and claimed to have fared well. However, in alleged violation of the Rules and guidelines, the respondent No.5 has been preferred over the petitioner for such appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that the said respondent No.5 is not a resident of the said locality, which is a requirement and therefore was not eligible for consideration for such appointment. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 4957/2014. This Court upon hearing the parties had passed an order dated 23.09.2014 disposing of the writ petition by directing the Director, Social Welfare to make an enquiry into the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of her representation. The representation was accordingly considered and the Director came to a finding that the allegations of the petitioner regarding the domicile of the respondent No.5 was unfounded and accordingly the representation was rejected. As indicated above, it is the said order of the Director dated 02.07.2015 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

4. I have heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri J. Payeng, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. The materials before this Court have been carefully examined.

5. Ms. K. Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition attached to the advertisement that an incumbent has to be a permanent resident of the Anganwadi Centre in question is a mandatory requirement and cannot be deviated from. This is more so, as the duties to be performed by an Anganwadi Worker requires such Anganwadi Worker to reside adjacent to the Centre. By drawing the attention of this Court to the application of the respondent No.5, it is submitted that the address of the respondent No.5 has been stated to be village Bagoriguri and not Uttar Bagoriguri which is a distinct village. Attention has also been drawn to a certificate issued by a Ward Member whereby the petitioner has been testified to be a resident of Uttar Bagoriguri whereas the respondent No.5 is a resident of Bagoriguri. Similar certificate of the President of the Gaon Panchayat and the Gaon Burah of No.2, Lat Namoni Jakaibowa have been relied upon. The petitioner has also annexed a certificate issued by the Office of the SDO (Civil) whereby the respondent No.5 has been certified to be a resident of Bagoriguri. Ms. Devi, learned counsel accordingly submits that the present is a fit case for interference.

6. The contesting respondents have filed affidavits-in-opposition. Shri T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam by referring to the affidavit-in-op