WP(C) 3742/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioners are aggrieved by their substitution as members o f the Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under t he Dhemaji, Machkhowa and Bordoloni ICDS Projects of the State. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petit ioner and Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel, Assam. For the order, which I propose to pass, I do not consider it nec essary to issue formal notice. The petitioners have averred that they are social workers of the ir respective localities and are held in high esteem. The Government of Assam vi de notification No. SWD.64/2007/Pt.I/36 dated 30/1/2009 had prescribed the compo sition of such Selection Committees. According to them, in recognition of their status and philanthropic profile, by notification dated 21/8/2009, they were nom inated as members of the Selection Committee for the following ICDS Projects. 1. Sri Numal Chungkrang (Petitioner No. 1), Bordoloni ICDS. 2. Sri Rabi Das (Petitioner No. 2), Bordoloni ICDS. 3. Sri Jayanta Saikia (Petitioner No. 3), Machkhowa ICDS. 4. Sri Pradip Baruah (Petitioner No. 4), Dhemaji ICDS. The petitioners duly accepted their nomination and while the matter rested at th at by the impugned notification dated 27/8/2009, in modification of the earlier notification, the petitioners are replaced by the private respondents as members of the Selection Committees of the aforementioned ICDS Projects. Mr. Mahanta has emphatically urged that though the petitioners as such do not ha ve any legal right to claim nomination as members of such committees, the manner in which they have been ousted is patently vitiated by want of fairness in acti on and is, therefore, liable to be adjudged illegal and unconstitutional. The pe titioners having once being nominated as members of the Selection Committees, th ey ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before their removal, h e urged. The learned Sr. Counsel has contended that the petitioners having accep ted their nomination, they have a right to know the reasons for the modification of the constitution of their respective Committees and the omission on the part of the respondents to communication to them, the same renders the impugned deci sion null and void. Mr. Ghosh has argued that as admittedly the petitioners cannot claim any legal r ight over their nomination, the impugned notification is unassailable in law. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts, this Court does not feel convinced to sustain the challenge made herein. Not only the petitioners are not vested with any right to claim nominati on as members of the Selection Committees as above, their ouster per se does not invalidate the inclusion of others in their place. When queried by this Court, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that no represe ntation as such has been submitted by the petitioners before the appropriate aut horities to elicit the reason for their displacement from the Selection Committe es. The impugned action is purely administrative in nature and though a little a brupt does not ipso facto admit of any inference of arbitrariness or malafide. N o allegation of extraneous or irrelevant consideration has also been made in the petition favouring private respondents at the cost of the petitioners. The plea of unfairness, in the above premise, so as to vitiate the impugned decision on the face of it does not commend for acceptance. The impugned decision has not be en challenged to be wanting in competence or jurisdiction. The nomination of the petitioners did not vest them with any inviolable right to continue as the memb ers of the respective Selection Committees. The impugnment of the notification d ated 27/8/2009 thus cannot be upheld. The petition therefore lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed. The above notwithstanding, if the petitioners submit a representation before the concerned authorities seeking the reason for the cancellation of their nominati on, they would be provided the same without undue delay. No costs.