IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the new Guidelines of 2019 for the recruitment of Anganwadi Workers in Arunachal Pradesh take precedence over previous guidelines, emphasizing the importance of local residency in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned Advertisement, being Memo No. BSR/ICDS/Esstt-02/2021-22/169, dated 27.10.2021, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Basar ICDS Project by inviting eligible candidate from Bam Hikar Centre to fill up vacant post of Anganwadi Worker, as well as impugned reply dated 02.11.2021.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in pursuant to the Advertisement, being Memo No. BSR/ICDS/Estt-02/2021-22/169, dated 27.10.2021, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Basar ICDS Project (respondent No. 2 herein), for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bam Hikar Centre, the petitioner, being eligible candidate having requisite qualification, also applied for the said post with required documents. However, the respondent No. 2 denied the application of the petitioner citing the reason that she is from Yorte area and not from Hikar area of Bam Village. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application/representation dated 29.10.2021 for cancellation of aforesaid Advertisement on the ground that the advertisement in question is a violation of the Government of India Guidelines No. D.O. No. 1-13/2010-CD.1, dated 18.10.2010, whereby the selection of Anganwadi Workers under the ICDS scheme should be a lady from the local village and acceptable in the local community. However, the respondent No. 2 had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner vide its reply dated 02.11.2021 stating that the said Government of India Guidelines is changed under the new guideline of “Arunachal Pradesh Terms and Conditions of Services of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers their roles and responsibilities Guidelines 2019” (hereinafter referred to as ‘Guidelines of 2019’). Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted another application/representation on 03.11.2021 for furnishing the Guidelines of 2019, however same has not been provided by the respondent No. 2. Hence, this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for setting aside the impugned Advertisement, dated 27.10.2021, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Basar ICDS Project, being illegal and arbitrary, and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in written test interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker which is laying vacant at Hikar Centre, Bam Village for the ends of justice and equity.

5. It is submitted by Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned Advertisement dated 27.10.2021 as well as the impugned rejection Order dated 02.11.2021 is in contravention of the Government of India Guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Worker, issued on 18.10.2010, and as such, the impugned Advertisement issued by the respondent authority by inserting the given terms and conditions is illegal and arbitrary as because in the said guideline of Government of India, the Anganwadi Worker should be a lady from a local village and acceptable in local community. He further submitted that in Old Bam Village, there are as many as 5 (five) Anganwadi Centre, namely, Yorte Centre, Hikar Centre, Check Post Centre, Bane Centre and Old Bam (Pomte) Centre, and in all those Centre, the workers and helpers are not from their area where the Anganwadi Centre are located, though all are inhabitant of Bam Village and they are appointed as Anganwadi workers and helpers of aforesaid Centre of Old Bam Village. Thus, the impugned Advertisement and Reply of rejection are irrational and perverse and is violation of principle of na