Point of Law: It is prevailing law at that time of issuance of advertisement that will govern and as per same, requirement was to be a local woman residing in locality.

JUDGMENT :

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by questioning the legality and validity of an order dated 02.06.2018 passed by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam by which a direction has been issued to the CDPO, Bhurbandha ICDS Project to issue termination letter to the petitioner who was working as Angwandi Worker (AWW) in the Sunarigaon No. 24 Anganwadi Centre from her voluntary service, pursuant to which an order dated 13.06.2018 was passed of such termination. The aforesaid order has been passed in compliance of an order dated 01.10.2015 of this Court in WP(C)/2165/2013.

2. The case in hand has a chequered history. The projected case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued on 10.09.2009 for filling up of the post of AWW against the No. 274 Sunarigaon Anganwadi Centre (hereinafter Centre) in the district of Morigaon. The petitioner who claims to be a local resident applied for the same and was appointed vide an order dated 23.12.2009.

3. The aforesaid order of appointment dated 23.12.2009 was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition WP(C)/471/2010 instituted by the respondent no. 6. This Court vide an order dated 20.05.2011 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the grievance within a period of two months. On such remand, the Director passed an order dated 30.11.2012 which according to the petitioner was never communicated to her and neither any notice preceding the same was issued to her. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2012, the CDPO, Bhurbanda ICDS Project issued an order dated 18.04.2013 whereby the petitioner was informed that her services as AWW has been terminated and she was asked to handover all necessary documents to the respondent no. 4.

4. This led to another round of litigation in the form of WP(C)/2165/2013 filed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was initially stayed by this Court vide an order dated 26.04.2013 and subsequently, the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2015 by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2013 holding the same to be ex-parte and remanded back the matter to the Director for re-examination. The aforesaid exercise was directed to be completed within a month.

5. The petitioner has alleged that no steps were taken to act in compliance with the aforesaid direction dated 01.10.2015 to dispose of the matter within the time frame of one month. However, after about two years, vide a notice dated 11.08.2017, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Director with all necessary papers in support of her claim of residence. Such meeting being ultimately held on 10.01.2018, the petitioner has claimed of submitting certificates dated 04.09.2012 and 04.05.2017 issued by the local Gaonburah, certificates dated 04.05.2017 issued by the Ward Commissioner and Chief Worker of the Circle. The petitioner also claims to have submitted other relevant documents like Voter List and adduce oral evidence.

6. The petitioner has projected that by ignoring all the relevant documents, the respondent no. 4 had issued the order dated 02.06.2018 holding the petitioner to be an outsider and directed the CDPO to issue necessary orders pursuant to which the impugned the order dated 13.06.2018 was issued by the CDPO, Bhurbanda ICDS Project terminating the services of the petitioner as AWW of the Centre. As indicated above, it is the validity and legality of the aforesaid action of termination of the petitioner from her services which has been put to challenge in this writ petition.

7. I have heard Shri AI Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, who has also produced the records. Ms. A. Devi, Legal Aid Counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 6. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

8. Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner ha