IMPORTANT POINT
Promotion eligibility for Anganwadi Workers is confined to residents of the same revenue village, as per guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. S. B. Laskar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, and Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding, is to the promotion effected in respect of the respondent No. 6, herein, to the post of Anganwadi Worker in 74 No. Nimaichandpur Anganwadi Centre under Lala ICDS Project.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, claims that she was engaged as an Anganwadi Helper vide order, dated 06.10.2004, at 74 No. Nimaichandpur Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner, herein, claims that she had continued to discharge her duties as an Anganwadi Helper since the date of her initial engagement. The Child Development Project Officer, Lala ICDS Project, had issued an advertisement, dated 22.06.2022, inviting applications from the eligible Anganwadi Helper for upgradation/promotion as Anganwadi Workers against the centres so notified in the said advertisement. One of the requisite criteria for being eligible to apply for the posts involved in the said advertisement is that the intending applicant should have minimum 10 years working experience as an Anganwadi Helper.

4. The respondent authorities had issued a Notification, dated 04.03.2013, and therein, had laid down the guidelines for promotion of Anganwadi Helper to the post of Anganwadi Worker.

5. In terms of the said advertisement; both the petitioner, herein, as well as the private respondent No. 6, had submitted their respective applications and had participated in the selection process involved. It is contended that on conclusion of the said selection process, the names of the petitioner, herein, as well as the private respondent No. 6, were short-listed for appearing for a technical test which was scheduled on 25.07.2022.

6. It is contended by the petitioner, herein, that the respondent authorities without duly considering her merit and also her selection in the said selection process, had proceeded to appoint the private respondent No. 6, herein, to the post of Anganwadi Worker in 74 No. Nimaichandpur Anganwadi Centre.

7. Being aggrieved by the same; the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.

8. Ms. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had acquired the requisite minimum length of service as an Anganwadi Helper for being considered for promotion against the post of Anganwadi Worker. It was further submitted that the petitioner, herein, on being required by the Centre authorities, was also holding the charge of the post of Anganwadi Worker of 74 No. Nimaichandpur Anganwadi Centre and accordingly, she has a better claim for promotion against the post of Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre.

9. Ms. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also contended that the promotion of the respondent No. 6, herein, as an Anganwadi Worker against the post available at 74 No. Nimaichandpur Anganwadi Centre, would require an interference from this Court, in-as-much as, the respondent No. 6, herein, is not a resident within the area of coverage of the said Anganwadi Centre.

10. Per contra, Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, has submitted that in terms of the guidelines as notified for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker from the post of Anganwadi Helper vide Notification, dated 4.03.2013; for being eligible for promotion as an Anganwadi Worker, a candidate must have rendered at least 10 years of service as an Anganwadi Helper. Further, it is stipulated that the consideration of Anganwadi Helpers for promotion as Anganwadi Workers shall remain confined amongst the Anganwadi Centres situated in the same revenue village.

11. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, has further submitted that in pursuance of a selection process; the respondent No. 6 on being recommended by the se