Adherence to eligibility criteria and principles of equality under the Constitution of India in the appointment process.

1. Heard Ms. U. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The instant writ petition is filed assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker of No. 6. Atiyachar Anganwadi Centre. The further challenge made in this writ petition is order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam in pursuance of an order dated 17.12.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5634/2009.

3. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows:-

I. An advertisement dated 08.09.2009 was issued by the respondent No. 4 inviting application for filling up of posts of Anganwadi Worker and Helper for the newly created Anganwadi Centre and Mini Anganwadi Centre.

II. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of vacant post of Anganwadi Worker (AWW) in No. 6 Atiyachar Mini Anganwadi Centre.

III. The respondent No. 5 also applied for the post in question. However, according to the petitioner, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she is not a local resident and she is under aged in terms of condition No. 3 of the advertisement.

IV. An interview was held on 30.10.2009. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 who even did not appear in the interview was appointed to the post in question on 23.11.2009.

V. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No 5634/2009 and this Court by its order dated 17.12.2015, disposed of the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 2 by agitating her grievances as raised in the said writ petition with a further direction to the respondent No. 6 to take a decision in the event such approach is made by giving a hearing to all the parties and to pass a speaking order.

VI. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a representation on 06.01.2016 and thereafter, hearing was taken on 17.08.2016 and the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam passed a speaking order on 09.09.2016, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Such order is under challenged in this writ petition.

4. The claim of the petitioner was rejected and decision to appoint the respondent No. 5 was upheld by passing the impugned order dated 09.09.2016. In the speaking order, the following conclusions were made and reasons were recorded:-

I. On the date of submission of application, the respondent No. 5 was below 18 years.

II. However, on the date of issuance of the appointment letter in the month of November, 2009, she was major.

III. The respondent No. 5 attained the age of majority. She stood first in the interview. She has been performing her duty with full satisfaction of higher authority.

IV. The petitioner is not staying in the concerned locality since last five years and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage.

5. Assailing the impugned speaking order, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends the following:-

I. The respondent No. 5 admittedly was a minor on the last date of submission of application and therefore, her candidature ought to have been rejected by the authorities and her appointment is void-ab-initio and the selection of the respondent No. 5, is also in gross violation of the advertisement dated 08.09.2009.

II. By illegally appointing the respondent No. 5, the petitioner who was the sole eligible candidate has been denied appointment, thus, violated her right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 as well as appointment of the respondent No. 5 to the post in question is liable to be struck down.

III. The reason recorded by the Director, as regards residence of the petitioner is also not sustainable under law inasmuch as staying away from the permanent residence cannot be a ground to