WP(C) 327/2010 WP(C)BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA All the three writ petitions pertain to selection and appointment of Anganwadi W orkers/Helpers in the Mahamaya and Debitota ICDS project within the jurisdiction of BTC. While, it is the case of the petitioners that the selection was conducted as per norms and guidelines fixed by the Government and those, which are applicable in 6th schedule area, it is the stand of the BTC that, there was deviation from th e said fixed norms and guidelines while making the selection. The specific stand of the BTC is that the required approval of the BTC towards appointment of cand idates was not obtained. This plea of the BTC has been admitted by the petitione rs themselves as well as the other authorities of the Government of Assam. As recorded in the order dated 15.03.2010, during the course of hearing the fol lowing position emerged in respect of which the CDPO and BTC were directed to fi le affidavits. 1) Although the select was published and the petitioner was appointed as An ganwadi Worker/Helper, but the select list was not approved by the authority of the B.T.C. 2) Although in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit filed by Shri Kanak Chandra Goswami, C.D.P.O., Mahamaya ICDS Project, it has been stat ed that only one member did not sign the select list, but as per the documents p roduced by Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, B.T.C., the select list h as been signed by only two members i.e. the Chairman and the C.D.P.O. It is subm itted that there were altogether 6(six) members in the selection committee. 3) As per the Annexure-P notification dated 31.8.2007 laying down the guide lines for selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, there shall be separate guidel ines for 6th Schedule area. It is submitted that the B.T.C. is in the 6th Sched ule area. According to Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, BTC, separate guideline was issued by the B.T.C. on 2nd September, 2009, but that was not fo llowed by the C.D.P.O. in conducting the selection. 4) By Annexure-Q notification dated 1.9.2009 issued by the B.T.C, it was cl early indicated that the ICDS Project-wise list of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers dul y approved by the selection board will be required to get final approval by the concerned BTC authority. In the instant case, no such approval was obtained. 5) As per the Annexure-R notification dated 29.9.2009. the selection commit tee is required to submit the select list duly signed by all the members includi ng the Chairman of the committee to the BTC authority for final approval. It fur ther provided that the C.D.P.O. of the ICDS Project will submit the select list of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers to the Director of Social Welfare, Assam for necess ary action only after obtaining approval of the BTC authority. In the instant c ase, the said procedure was not followed. 6) As per the affidavit filed by the C.D.P.O., the select list had to be pu blished hurriedly as he was pressurized to publish the select list under threat of departmental proceeding. 7) As per the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.8, one of the selected candidates namely, Ms Jahanara Khatun has been selected although she do es not fulfill the requirement of prescribed age i.e. 18 years to 44 years. Acc ording to the Respondent No.8, the said Jahanara Khatun, is aged about 16 years. The above are the factual aspects/anomalies, which have emerged from the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced by Mrs. M. Bordoloi, learne d Standing Counsel, BTC. All these aspects will require answer from the departm ental authorities i.e. the Social Welfare department. Till now, neither the Gove rnment of Assam in the Social Welfare Department nor the Directorate of Social W elfare has filed any counter affidavit. They are directed to do so on or before 31st March,2010. Heard-in-part. In addition, the C.D.P.O. shall also file an additional affid avit touching the above aspects of the matter. The B.T.C. may also file necessar y affidavit. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.03.2010 affidavits have been filed by t he State Government, Director of Social Welfare, CDPO and the authority of the B TC. In the affidavit filed by the CDPO, the impugned action on his part has been justified. However, in Para-5A of the said affidavit it has been admitted that, no approval could be obtained from the BTC but proposal for Ex-post-facto appro val was submitted to the BTC authority vide letter dated 29.12.2009. However, th ere is no indication as to whether the records had also been placed before the B TC authority. As against the claim of the CDPO that the comparative merit list was signed by t he Selection Committee members except one, it is the stand of the BTC that the d ocument purportedly containing the names of the selected candidates forwarded to it, only contained the signatures of two members and not of the five. I have heard Mr. J Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Da s, learned Standing Counsel assisted by Mrs. M Bordoloi, learned Standing Counse l, BTC. I have also heard Ms. P Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Social We lfare Department as well as Ms. R Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Government Advocate, Assam. Mr. J A Azad has made submission on behalf of respondent No.8. Considering the matter in its entirety and in view of the fact that Ex-post-fact o approval has been sought for by the CDPO from the authority of the BTC, I am o f the considered opinion that the matter can be disposed of by providing that th e BTC authority will consider the matter relating to granting Ex-post-facto appr oval to the proposal made by the CDPO examining the matter in detail. Such the p rocedure adopted in the matter of selection and as to whether the procedure did conform to the norms and guidelines. Based on such consideration of the matter, the BTC authority shall decide as to whether the Ex-post-facto approval should b e granted or not. Whatever may be the outcome of consideration of the case in te rms of this order, same shall be incorporated by way of an order which needless to say should be a speaking order. To facilitate the above exercise by the BTC authority, all the relevant material s and record shall be forwarded to the BTC authority by the CDPO. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one mon th from the date of furnishing the required materials by the CDPO to the BTC aut hority. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mrs. B Bordoloi, learned Counsel, who h as appeared along with Mr. D Das, learned Standing Counsel, BTC.