MC 1096/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA The instant application is one by the Selection Committee, Chama ria I.C.D.S. Project, Nagarbera, District Kamrup, represented by its Chairman, r espondents No. 4 in the accompanying writ petition WP(C) 1073/2010. The writ pro ceeding at the instance of the present opposite party was initially registered a s PIL 5/2010 in which this Court a Division Bench of this Court on 10/2/2010 res trained the State respondents from publishing the result of the selection proces s pertaining to the appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in the Chamaria ICDS Project, Nagarbera. The opposite party admittedly was a Member of the Sele ction Committee pertaining to the said process. By an order of the even date, the Division Bench, having regard to the nature of the issues raised held that a Public Interest Litigation was not maintainable b ut considering the gravity of the objections recorded vis-à-vis the process dire cted the office to re-register the proceeding as a writ petition. It was accordi ngly registered as WP(C) 1073/2010 and laid before a Single Bench taking up matt ers under Civil Bench-III. As meanwhile the instant misc. application has been f iled seeking vacation and/or modification of the order dated 10/2/2010, the proc eeding for this limited purpose returned to a Division Bench. We have heard Ms. M. Das, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel for the opposite party/writ petitioner. As referred to hereinabove, the issues on merits relate to a pro cess for appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in 108 nos Anganwadi Centr es/Mini Centres under Chamaria Integrated Child Development Project, Nagarbera. Having regard to the restricted purpose of the instant adjudication, it is not c onsidered essential to dilate on the factual details. Suffice it to mention that whereas the opposite party/writ petitioner has alleged incurable infirmities in the exercise relating to such appointments, according to the applicant, on rece ipt of a representation to the said effect from the opposite party/writ petition er submitted before the Departmental Minister, a Verification Committee already constituted on 23/10/2009 summoned its sitting on 27/1/2010 and undertook an exh austive scrutiny selection proceedings to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the imputations levelled. The pleadings in the misc. application as well as of the writ petition disclose that the opposite party/writ petitioner was a memb er of the said Verification Committee which undertook this exercise. On a scruti ny of the relevant official records pertaining to the selection, the Verificatio n Committee while deciding to withhold the results of 23 Centres under the said Project recommended declaration thereof vis-à-vis the rest i.e. 86 Centres. Logi cally in doing so, the Verification Committee had identified the Centres of both the categories. In course of the arguments, Mr. Biswas has admitted that the opp osite party/writ petitioner was member of the Verification Committee that it con ducted the process of scrutiny on the basis of his (opposite party/writ petition er) represented before the Departmental Minister. He has admitted that the oppos ite party/writ petitioner has been a signatory to the proceedings of the Verific ation Committee. He has, therefore, on instructions submitted that the opposite party/writ petitioner does not question the correctness of the conclusions recor ded by the Verification Committee vis-à-vis the Centres in question. Ms. Das submits that in view of the exercise done by the Verific ation Committee and the recommendations recorded by it, the interim order of res traint dated 10/2/2010 ought to be vacated. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleadings available on record, we are of the view, having regard to the intervening developments as recited hereinabove, that the interim order d ated 10/2/2010 warrants modification. As admittedly the Verification Committee c onstituted by the Government on a threadbare analysis of the materials on record have returned a finding that results of 23 Anganwadi Centres out of 108 Centres in the Chamaria ICDS Project, Nagarbera, ought to be withheld, we consider it a ppropriate to permit the State respondents to publish the results of the remaini ng 85 Centres as identified by the Verification Committee. We, however, do not e xpress any opinion with regard to the remaining 23 Centres in the Project for wh ich results have been withheld by the Verification Committee. The interim order dated 10/2/2010, therefore, stands modified in the above terms. Misc. case is thus partially allowed.