Mrs. Afia Begum vs State of Assam

Mr. L.S. Jamir, J. - Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J.U. Laskar, learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Ms. BD Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Deptt. appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6.

The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the Notification dated 16.6.2012, more particularly, Clause 1 (i) thereof, wherein the words "same area" have been replaced by the words "revenue village" which was issued by the Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Assam.

Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the State respondents has been issuing notifications from time to time by constituting selection committee and also providing eligibility criteria, selection procedure etc. for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in Anganwadi centres. On 19.9.2009, the State respondents had issued a Notification whereby mandatory requirement and qualifications for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers have been provided at para 2 (A) (i). It is provided that the candidate for the post of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers shall be a local woman residing in the same village where the Anganwadi centre is located. It is submitted that by corrigendum dated 22.9.2009, the State respondents had omitted the words "same village" and instead had inserted the words "same area".

Mr. Sarania also submits that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development had issued guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers under ICDS Scheme by a Circular dated 22.9.2011 wherein at para 3, the guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers provided that she should be a lady from the local village and acceptable in the local community. It was also provided that special care should be taken in her selection so that the children of Scheduled Caste and other weaker sections of the society are ensured free access to Anganwadi. He submits that in total contravention of the guidelines contained in the Circular dated 22.9.2011, the State respondents had issued another Notification dated 16.6.2012 wherein at Clause 1 (i) which provides for mandatory requirement and qualification for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, the words "same area" as contained in the corrigendum dated 22.9.2009 have been replaced by the words "revenue village". Mr. Sarania, therefore, submits that the action of the State respondents is against the guidelines of the Central Govt. and the impugned Notification dated 16.6.2012 has been issued without any application of mind. The very purpose of the intention of the Central Govt. for issuing the guidelines with regard to selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers has been removed and therefore, Clause 1 (i) of the Notification dated 16.6.2012 requires interference.

Ms. B.D0 Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department submits that the words "revenue village" have been inserted in the Notification dated 16.6.2012 with the sole intention for avoiding the outsiders thereby allowing the local candidates to be appointed on the basis of merit. She, therefore, submits that the decision to replace the words "same area" by "revenue village" was taken after thorough consideration of the matter and therefore, no interference is required with the said Notification dated 16.6.2012.

Mr. J.U. Laskar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 4 adopts the submissions forwarded by the learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department.

I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The main contentions of the respondents are reflected at para 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 3. The same reads as under;

"5. That the deponent begs to state that the word "village", which was mentioned in the notification dated 19.9.2009 indicates about the revenue village, which has a proper demarcated area, fixed by the revenue authority. It is pertinent to mention herein that creation of AWC is based on population pattern of the village and each AWC has its own functioning area. The Govt. issued the aforesaid CORRIGENDUM dated 22.9.2009, correction the word "same village" as "same area", with as on instruction that the candidate for the post of AWW/AWH may get selection from the concerned functioning area of the concerned AWC. But, after completion of the selection process, it has been observed that, many writ petitions have been filed before the Court, challenging the residential status of the selected candidates and as a result, the SWD Deptt. has to spent lots of time in finalizing the grievance of the writ petitioners and even the District Administration has to be involved to verify the residential status of the selected candidates as well as the writ petitioners and dispute arise regarding residential status inasmuch there were no proper demarcation regarding the functioning area of AWCs. In view of the above, the Govt. has decided to change the eligibility criteria regarding the residential status of the AWW/AWH etc and issued the Notification No. SWD 64/2007/Pt-I/41 dated 16.6.2012, allowing the local women candidate to apply for the posts, who are residing in the concerned revenue village where the AWC is located.

That the deponent begs to state that the Govt. of India vide letter dated 22.9.2011 has emphasized to select the AWW/AWH from local Village and not from other village. It is pertinent to mention herein that as the revenue village has its demarcated boundary fixed by the revenue authority, question of selection of candidates from other village will not arise and as such depravation of candidates from the concerned village for selection as AWW/AWH as claimed by the writ petitioners is baseless. The candidates who are residing within the revenue village are entitled to apply for selection of AWW/AWH. There is no distinction between the words "revenue village" and same village as Central Govt. guide line provides that "AWW/AWH" should be a lady from the local village and in the Central Govt. Guideline there is no clear indication that AWW/AWH should be a lady from the same village or revenue village and as such the impugned Notification dated 16.6.2012 [annexure-D in the writ petition] has not been issued in contrary to the Central Govt. Guide line."

The Respondent No.3 has also filed an additional affidavit and the relevant portion at para 3 therein is reproduced here in below;

"In paragraph-5 of the affidavit filed on 16.11.2013, one line has been missed out, i.e. "depending upon the population pattern of the village, there may be more than one AWC", the said line has been missed out inadvertently."

In the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India, para 3 reads as under:

"3. The guidelines for selection of AWWs/AWHs provide that she should be a lady from the local village and acceptable in the local community. Special care should be taken in her selection so that the children of Scheduled Caste and other weaker sections of the society are ensured free access to Anganwadi."

A reading of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development contained in the Circular dated 22.9.2011 would indicate that the main aim and objective of the Central Govt. was to select Anganwadi Workers/Helpers from the local village and who are acceptable in the local community and that special care should be taken in their selection so that the children of the Scheduled Caste and other weaker sections of the society are ensured free access to Anganwadi.

The State respondents, more particularly, the Social Welfare Department while issuing the impugned Notification dated 16.6.2012 had replaced the words "same area" by "revenue village". This Court is of the considered opinion that the words "revenue village" would include a very big area wherein there will be several villages involved and therefore, the very intention of the guidelines issued for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers by the Central Govt. would stand diluted. The explanation given at para 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 3 has been considered by this Court. This Court is not impressed by the explanation given therein. The explanation given would indicate that the State respondents are trying to cross the limits contained in the guidelines issued by the Central Govt. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case calling for interference with the Notification dated 16.6.2012.

Accordingly, Clause 1 (i) of the impugned Notification dated 16.6.2012 is set aside and quashed. The State respondents are forthwith directed to modify Clause 1 (i) of the impugned Notification dated 16.6.2012 strictly in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Central Govt. in the Circular dated 22.9.2011.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.