The court upheld the termination of an Anganwadi Worker based on valid grounds, emphasizing the importance of adherence to government guidelines and the unsuitability of disputed facts for writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Alhajj I. Uddin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 and Ms. A. Devi, Legal Aid Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. The instant intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 09.08.2022, passed by the writ Court in WP (C) 4071/2018, dismissing the said writ petition holding that no enforceable rights of the petitioner came to be violated on account of issuance of the order, dated 02.06.2018, by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, towards removing the petitioner from her engagement as an Anganwadi Worker (AWW) in Sunarigaon No. 24 Anganwadi Centre, Morigaon.

3. The present case has a chequered history, wherein, the issue with regard to the selection and appointment of an Anganwadi Worker (AWW) in Sunarigaon No. 24 Anganwadi Centre, Morigaon, was under litigation before this Court since the year 2010.

4. The respondent authorities, had, vide an Advertisement, dated 10.09.2009, invited applications from interested candidates, amongst others, for engagement as an Anganwadi Worker (AWW) in Sunarigaon No. 24 Anganwadi Centre, Morigaon. The appellant, herein, respondent No. 6 and other eligible persons had participated in the selection process that ensued in pursuance of the said Advertisement, dated 10.09.2009, and therein, on an inter-se comparison of the merits of the candidates so participating; the selection committee proceeded to recommend the name of the appellant, herein, for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker (AWW) against Sunarigaon No. 24 Anganwadi Centre, Morigaon.

Being aggrieved by the appointment of the appellant; the respondent No. 6, herein, by way of instituting a writ petition being WP (C) 471/2010, assailed the same before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide an order, dated 20.05.2011, remanding back the matter to the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, to look into the grievances of the petitioner therein and upon making an inquiry in the matter, to pass appropriate orders. It is contended that pursuant to the said directions; the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, had arrived at a conclusion that the engagement of the appellant, herein, to be not sustainable and accordingly, the same came to be interfered with.

The said interference so made by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, led to the institution of a writ petition being WP (C) 2165/2013 by the appellant, herein, before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide the order, dated 01.10.2015, wherein, after noticing the issues coming on record, had required the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, to inquire into the matter again after providing for an opportunity of hearing to all the contesting parties and accordingly, a date was also fixed for the appearance of the parties including the appellant, herein, and respondent No. 6, herein. The order of termination of the appellant, herein, vide the order, dated 18.04.2013, was accordingly interfered with.

5. As projected in the writ petition; the said hearing was thereafter conducted by the respondent authorities and vide an order, dated 02.06.2018, the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, on consideration of the materials as brought on record in the inquiry so held; proceeded to hold that the engagement of the appellant, herein, was in violation of the Government guidelines for engagement of Anganwadi Worker and Helper and accordingly, a decision was arrived at to direct the Child Development Project Officer, Bhurbanda ICDS Project, Morigaon, to issue orders towards terminating the engagement of the appellant, herein.

6. The said conclusion as reached by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam, in the order, dated 02.06.2018, was so based on a survey report as produced in the matter, wherein, the name of the appellant, herein, was not