WP(C) 237/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. D.K. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 237/ 2010 as well as Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W P(C) 5301/2010. Both the writ petitions being inter-connected, they have been he ard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department, apart from referring to the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit, has a lso referred to the records produced by her. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel app earing for the private respondents No. 9 & 10 in WP(C) 237/2010, has also made s ubmissions upon a reference to the stand of the said respondents in MC 2393/2010 . While the petitioners involved in WP(C) 237/2010 are the members of the Selection Committee, which was constituted for selection of candidates for the a ssignment of Anganwadi Workers / Helpers of Pub Mangaldoi and Paschim Mangaldoi ICDS Project, the petitioners involved in WP(C) 5301/2010 are the selected candi dates for appointment as such. While in WP(C) 237/2010, the prayer made is to se t aside and quash the entire process of selection initiated pursuant to the adve rtisement in question, the prayer made in the other writ petition is for a direc tion to the respondents to appoint the selected candidates on the basis of the s election conducted by the Selection Committee. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and have also gone through the entire materials on records. According to t he petitioners involved in WP(C) 237/2010, after the selection was conducted and the select list was prepared, the respondents No. 4 to 6 secretly manipulated t he tabulation sheet containing the names of the selected candidates. In paragrap h 9 of the writ petition, the stand taken is that the said respondents manipulat ed the tabulation sheet without consulting the other members including the petit ioners, who were members of the Selection Committee and that such a course of ac tion was adopted by breaking open the almirah in which records were kept. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid plea of the petitioners has been denied and it has been stated that after the selection in which the petitioner duly participated, a comparative statement containing t he names of the candidates and the marks obtained by them was prepared, in which all the members of the Selection Committee including the petitioners duly put t heir signatures. According to the respondents, the petitioners raised hue and cr y when the candidates of their choice could not make it to the select list. I have gone through the entire records including the comparative stateme nt containing the names of the candidates. On perusal of the said comparative st atements, I do not find any manipulation in the same, rather what I find is that the said comparative statement has been duly signed by all the members of the S election Committee including the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, number of letters of recommendations made by various authorities including Ex.M.P. have been enclosed to show that there was outside pressure to make appointment to the said post of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. Such recommendations were made by one Mazibar Rahman , President, District Congress Committee, Darrang, Mr. Madhab Rajbangshi, Ex. MP and Assembly and President, Pub Mangaldoi Block Coongress Committee. It is not discernible from the records as to whether such recommendations have been acted upon by the Selection Committee. Be that as it may, it is really unfortunate tha t such authorities could merrily make recommendations for selection of candidate s of their choice, without there being any check and balance. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have indicated a bout the enquiry conducted in respect of certain anomalies in conducting the sel ection. The enquiry committee was consisted of 10(ten) members including the pet itioners No. 3 & 4. The Chairman of the Committee was the Joint Secretary, Socia l Welfare Department. Shri C. Kalita, Under Secretary of the Social Welfare Depa rtment was the Member-Secretary. The enquiry committee in its minutes recorded o n 24.02.2010 identified certain Anganwadi Centres wherein certain anomalies were found and accordingly made the following recommendations :- With regard to the centres, where the Committee decided to withhold the result in respect the residence of the candidates, the Circle Officer & the CDPO concer ned will conduct ’on the spot’ verification and submit their findings to the Gov t. for further necessary action. For other centres, where the Committee has deci ded to with hold the result, the same may be done as per observation mentioned a bove. After scrutiny, the State Level Committee has decided to suggested the Govt. to allow the CDPO to publish the results in all other Anganwadi centres, except the centres as mentioned above. The Committee unanimously decided that before publication of the result the resi dential status of the selected candidates must invariably be ensured to avoid an y public resentment and future legal complicacies. If the residential proof is d etected to be not genuine / nor as per the Govt. Guideline, the engagement shall be liable to be cancelled. Further, if there be any Court Cases, it must be str ictly followed before issuing the engagement letters to the Selected candidates . As per the aforesaid recommendation of the enquiry committee, the result s in respect of the Centres mentioned therein are withheld and further follow up action is to be carried out. In respect of some other centres also, certain act ion are to be taken as per the observations made in the report. The publication of the result which has been authorised to the CDPO is also subject to the appro val of the Govt. As per the report, before such publication of the result, the r esidential status of the selected candidates will have to be ensured to avoid an y public resentment. After the aforesaid exercise was carried out, the Govt. in the Social Welfare Department by its letter dated 23.6.2010 issued under the sig nature of said Shri C. Kalita, Under Secretary authorised the Circle Officer, Pa schim Mangaldoi to publish the result and also to take steps on the aforesaid en quiry report. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, similar dire ction was also issued for Pub Mangaldoi ICDS, vide letter dated 30.6.2010. Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) 530 1/2010 has also drawn my attention to the aforesaid enquiry report, the select l ist and also the aforesaid letter dated 30.6.2010, directing the Circle Officer, Pub Mangaldoi to take action as per the report. In view of the above, the plea of the petitioners that there was manipul ation of the result and the documents pertaining to the selection is not establi shed, rather what is established is that there was an enquiry relating to the an omalies in which the petitioners themselves participated. As noted above, all th e petitioners duly signed the comparative statement as well, which was prepared in respect of the candidates participated in the selection. For all the aforesaid reasons coupled with the fact that none of the fai led candidates are before us alleging any malafide exercise of power in preparin g the select list, I am not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioners, cons equently, while dismissing the writ petition being WP(C) 237/2010, the writ peti tion being WP(C) 5301/2010 stands disposed of with the following directions :- 1. The authorities while making the appointments will strictly adhere to th e select list prepared by the Selection Committee. In other words, appointments shall be made strictly on merit on the basis of the selection conducted. 2. Since the comparative statements have been prepared on the basis of the selection, same will form the basis for making the appointments. 3. While making the appointments, the authorities shall strictly follow the directions and instructions contained in the said enquiry report. In other word s, no appointment shall be made without proper verification, as suggested, in th e enquiry report. 4. It is expected rather directed that the authorities while making the app ointments shall not be guided by any political consideration and /or recommenda tions made by outside authorities but shall make the appointments strictly on th e basis of merit of the candidates. Writ petitions are disposed of. Interim order operating in WP(C) 237/2010 stands vacated.