HIRANYA MAYEE BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-54
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on April 26,2018

Hiranya Mayee Brahma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) and their officials (respondent Nos.3 5) are represented by, Mr. M. Khataniar, the learned standing counsel, BTC. However the respondent Nos.6 11 are unrepresented, although notice was served/deemed to be served, on all the private respondents.
(2.) The seventeen petitioners were appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the ICDS Projects in Chirang, Bongaigaon and Kokrajhar District and the duration of their tenure is between 13 27 years, as is reflected in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. When the process of induction to the cadre of Supervisor for the serving Anganwadi Workers was initiated through the advertisement dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure-III), issued by the BTC authorities, the petitioners offered their candidature and participated in the written and the viva voce test. But despite their empanelment in the waiting list they could not secure appointment and accordingly, the aspirants have challenged the selection process.
(3.) The learned counsel, Mr. H. Das for the petitioner contends that the private respondent Nos.6 11, who were empanelled in the main select list, had much shorter tenure of service as Anganwadi Worker and therefore, it is argued that the selection of the juniors for induction to the higher cadre of Supervisor is unjustified. 3.1. According to the petitioners, the selection exercise was overwhelmingly influenced by higher credit in the viva voce segment and accordingly, the process itself is projected to be legally unsustainable.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.