Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Samsun Nehar W/o Md. Gius Uddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To Govt. Of Assam, Social Welfare Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Both the review petition and the writ petition being connected and filed by the same petitioner, those are taken up together for an analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The facts projected are that a recruitment process was initiated in the year 2009 to fill up the posts of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in various Centres, including 22 No. Jaberikuchi Uttar Suba Anganwadi Centre under West Mangaldai Child Development Project in the district of Darrang.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she being eligible in all respects and had fared well in the selection should have been appointed. However, one Aparna Devi was selected against Sl. No. 1 and was offered the appointment. It is alleged that the said candidate, Aparna Devi was not a resident under the concerned Anganwadi Centre.
4. The aforesaid appointment of Aparna Devi was challenged by the present respondent no. 5 by filing WP(C)/4470/2013 in which, however, the petitioner was not made a party. The said writ petition was allowed vide an order dated 29.07.2016 whereafter the respondent no. 5 has been appointed. It is the contention of the petitioner that she was in Sl. No. 2 in
Local residency requirements that create artificial discrimination violate the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
Engagement orders in public service can be revised when based on a mistake, particularly if misrepresentation affects eligibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the survey report and resident certificate in determining the residency of a candidate for selection, emphasizing the normal re....
The court emphasized the right to livelihood under Article 21, affirming that administrative decisions must consider valid evidence and cannot disregard established facts that support eligibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that factual errors cannot be the basis for the exercise of review jurisdiction.
The court ruled that the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker must adhere to government guidelines, and challenges to such appointments require timely action and proper standing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
