WA 300/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN This appeal has been preferred against order of the learned single Judge dismiss ing the writ petition of the appellants against order dated 26th November, 2010 cancelling the selection process for appointment of Angawadi Workers and Helpers in the State of Assam. As per advertisement dated 7th September, 2009, applications were invite d by the Integrated Child Development Project(ICDP) for Anganwadi Workers and He lpers. The appellants applied for the said posts and selection process was held by way of interviews and a select list was prepared, which was duly published on 13.11.2009, after approval granted on 7.11.2009 by the Government. Since the se lect list was not being acted upon, the appellants sought a direction from this Court and the writ petition filed by them was disposed of on 4.11.2010. This Cou rt directed that a final decision be taken in the matter on the basis of report, which was said to have been submitted by committee constituted by the Governmen t, within fifteen days. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26th November, 201 0 was passed, cancelling the process. It was held that findings in the enquiry r eport dated 24th May, 2010 are indicative that there were irregularities and ano malies in the process of selection and the selection had not been carried out as per guidelines issued by the Government of Assam for selection of Anganwadi Wor kers /Anganwadi Helpers. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed writ petition in this Court. Sub mission in the writ petition was that the conclusion of the enquiry report was n ot sustainable and the anomalies/illegalities referred to therein are not of suc h nature as to vitiate the selection. No manipulation was attributed to any of t he selected candidates. The appellants would be seriously prejudiced by the deci sion to cancel the selection process. The enquiry was held at the instance of tw o non-official members nominated by the Minister. Their stand was not supported by the official members or the record. Non-official members had duly participate d in the interviews and awarded marks to the candidates. Later, they made allega tion that the selection had taken place before the interview itself. Such allega tion by the non-official members could not have been accepted on the face value, and in the speaking order, this aspect was not adverted to. No opportunity was given to the appellants of being heard. Learned single Judge did not accept these submissions on the ground that in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellants, the findings in the enqui ry were not challenged and no specific objection to the enquiry report was shown . We have heard Sri D Das, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and S ri J Singh, learned counsel for the State of Assam. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the earlier writ petit ion was limited to seeking a direction for taking a decision in the matter and t here was no occasion for the appellants to assail the findings of the enquiry re port till a decision had been taken by the Government, in the first instance. It was only after the decision was taken, the appellants had occasion to assail th e findings of the enquiry report. The enquiry report proceeded merely on the all egation of non-official members that the selection had taken place before the in terviews, which was contrary to their own participation in the selection process and the record. In any case, the appellants should be heard in the matter and t heir viewpoint also considered Learned counsel for the State supports the view taken by the learned sin gle Judge and the view taken in the impugned order dated 26th November, 2010. Question for consideration is whether order dated 26th November, 2010 ca ncelling the selection is liable to be quashed. It is clear that the impugned order dated 26th November, 2010 has been p assed solely on the basis of enquiry report dated 24th May, 2010. The appellants were never confronted with the said report, nor given any opportunity to presen t their view-point. No doubt, mere selection did not confer any right on the app ellants to seek appointment or to be heard. In the facts and circumstances of th e case, when this Court directed a decision to be taken in the matter on the all egations and counter-allegations, it would have been fair that the appellants we re given an opportunity to present their view-point in the matter. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of th e view that a fresh decision ought to be taken by the department after consideri ng the view-point of the appellants. The appellants may present their view-point to the department within two weeks from today and thereafter the department may take a fresh decision in the matter within one month. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the State.