WP(C) 4300/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA. Claiming inclusion of the petitioners as members of the selection commit tee constituted for the purpose of selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, they have filed the instant writ petitions. Since the grievance raised in the writ pe titions is one and the same, they have been heard together and are being dispose d of by this common order. In WP(C) No.4856/2009, the 3 (three) petitioners are the members of the Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat. While the petitioner No.1 is the Vice-Pre sident of Anchalik Panchayat, the petitioner No.2 is the President of Gaon Panch ayat. The petitioner No.3 is the Vice- President of Gaon Panchayat. In WP(C) No.4300/2009, while the petitioners No.1 and 2 are the Presiden t of Anchalik Panchayats, the petitioners No.3 and 4 are the elected members of Zilla Parishad. Other members are the Gaon Panchayat Presidents. In WP(C) No.48 13/2009, the lone petitioner is a member of Zilla Parishad. The petitioners in their above capacity, have filed the instant writ pet itions claiming that the selection of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in the Anganwadi centres having involved association of Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Z illa Parishad, in the selection committee, at least, the Presidents of Gaon Panc hayats should be included as members. In this connection, the petitioners have placed reliance on the Hand Book of Instructions regarding I.C.D.S. programme as on 31.12.1988 published by the Government of India in the department of Women & Child Development, Ministry of Human Resources Department. Clause-IV of the sa id Hand Book provides by way of suggestion that the Anganwadi Workers in the sel ected project areas may be selected by a committee consisting of District Social Welfare Officer, the B.D.O., the C.D.P.O., the Medical Officer of the Primary H ealth Centre, the President of the Taluka Panchayat/Block Advisory Committee, th e district representative of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board and any non -officials which the State Government may consider appropriate. This particular clause has a reference to the earlier letters dated 1.8.1975 and 22.8.1975. On the basis of the above suggestion incorporated in the Hand Book, it i s the case of the petitioners that the Gaon Panchayat Presidents must be include d as members in the selection committee. Their grievance is that in the impugne d selection committee, as notified vide Annexure-IIIA notification dated 19.9.20 09, the Gaon Panchayat Presidents have not been included as members. Another ground urged towards assailing the constitution of the said sele ction committee is that in WP(C) 4856/2009, the Respondent No.6, who has been in cluded as a social activist member, has got criminal background and thus, ought not to have included as a member of the selection committee. According to the p etitioners, there is a criminal case pending against the said member. In this c onnection, the petitioners have referred to Annexure-VIII F.I.R. dated 16.8.2003 registered as Barpeta Road Police Station Case No.163/2003 under Section 302/20 1/394/511 I.P.C. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentio ns raised in the writ petitions. It has been stated that the selection committee has been constituted and selection has been made as per the guidelines framed by the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Department from time to time. According to the respondents, the guidelines framed by the Government of India a re only suggestive and not mandatory. It has been stated that the petitioners c annot claim as a matter of course for inclusion of the Gaon Panchayat Presidents as members of the selection committee. Referring to the provisions of the Assa m Panchayat Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it has been stated in the affid avit that the said provisions do not even remotely suggest that the Gaon Pancha yat Presidents must be included as members of the selection committee. Thus, wh at has been contended in the affidavit is that the selection committee has been constituted as per the guidelines framed by the Government of Assam in the Soci al Welfare Department and non-inclusion of the Gaon Panchayat Presidents as memb ers of the selection committee cannot give rise to a situation, in which the pe titioners can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. I have heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, Dr. B. Ahmed and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned co unsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel r epresenting the private respondents as well as Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel has made his submission on behalf of the Respondent No.6. Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. coun sel has argued along with Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel representing the priv ate respondents. I have also considered the entire materials on record. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) N o.4856/2009, during the course of his argument, has referred to a decision of th e Apex Court reported in (2007) 7 SCC 718 (Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors) so as to emphasize that the constitutional status to the local-self-Government having been conferred to District Panchayat Taluk a and Village Panchayat, in the matter of selection and appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla Parishad must be associated as their organ at the grass root level towards implementation of various schemes through the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the petitioners in WP(C) No. 4300/2009, submits that pursuant to the guidelines formulated by the Government of India, the Government of Assam has also all along followed the said guideline s towards constitution of the selection committee so as to include the Gaon Panc hayat Presidents. He submits that there could not have been a deviation so as to exclude the Gaon Panchayat Presidents as members of the selection committee. Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing the petitioner in WP(C) No.4 813/2009, has also submitted in tune with the submission advanced by Mr. Y.S. Ma nnan and Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the petitioners in other two writ petitions. Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel representing the private respondents, on t he other hand, raising the question of very maintainability of the writ petition s, submits that the selection having been conducted and the list having been pre pared, the writ petitions are not maintainable, when the participants to the sel ection process are not aggrieved by the selection conducted by the selection com mittee. He submits that mere guidelines issued by the Government of India cannot be equated with the statutory provisions, which provide for constitution of the selection committee with the specified members. It has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the private res pondents that in the year 2006, a selection committee for the same purpose was c onstituted vide notification dated 29.8.2006, in which the Gaon Panchayat/Anchal ik Panchayat Presidents were not included as members and that the District Emplo yment Officer, included as a member of the selection committee who is not indica ted in the aforesaid Government of India notification. The said notification dat ed 29.8.2006 was followed by another notification dated 3.3.2007, in which the s ocial worker was included as a member of the selection committee. However, on al l those occasions, no Gaon Panchayat/Anchalik Panchayat Presidents raised any gr ievance. As regards the alleged criminal background of the Respondent No.6, Mr. B . Sinha, learned counsel representing the said respondent submits that mere fili ng of an F.I.R. against a person, does not make him a criminal. Mr. B.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department, sup porting the stand of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavit, subm its that there being no attribution of any malafide and/or colourable exercise o f power by the members of the selection committee, the writ Court will be reluct ant to interfere with the selection process on the assertion made by the petitio ners, which is not at all tenable. For a ready reference, clause-IV in the aforesaid Hand Book is quoted be low :- IV. Aganwadi Worder. 3.2.12 The Anganwadi Worker should be a lady (18-44 years) from the local villag e and acceptable in the local community. Special care should be taken in her sel ection so that the children of Scheduled Caste and other weaker sections of the society are ensured free access to Anganwadi.It is suggested that the AWWs in th e selected project areas may be selected by a committee consisting of District S ocial Welfare Officer, the B.D.O., the C.D.P.O., the Medical Officer of the prim ary health centre, the President of the Taluka Panchayat/advisory committee,the district representative of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board and any non-o fficials which the State Government may consider appropriate. By the aforesaid provisions, only a suggestion was made as to the constitution o f the selection committee. Apart from the fact that the Hand Book does not lay down any statutory provisions, the Hand Book itself suggests that the provisions made therein may be followed as the guidelines towards implementation of the I. C.D.S. programme. Even in the Annexure-II letter dated 2.2.1989, on which Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed much reliance so as to co ntend that all along the Government of Assam had followed the guidelines in the said Hand Book did not include all the members, as suggested in the Hand Book. In the said selection committee, the Programme Officer was included as Chairman, who has not been named in the said Hand Book. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the notification dated 31.8.2007, by which another selection committee was constituted so as to contend that as to whether it is in 1989 or in 2007, the Gaon Panchayat Presidents and/or Anchalik Panchayat Presidents had all along been included as members of the selection co mmittee. Thus, the whole basis of the claim of the petitioners is that irrespect ive of status of other members of the selection committee, so long as the Gaon P anchayat/Anchalik Panchayat Presidents are included as members of the selection committee, their rights are protected and even if the suggestions made in the H and Book towards constitution of the selection committee are not followed, such selection committee can carry out the selection. At no earlier point of time, the petitioners had questioned the constitution of the selection committees, which were constituted not strictly in terms of the su ggestion made in the Hand Book. They are aggrieved only in view of the fact tha t in the impugned selection committee, there is no provision for inclusion of th e Gaon Panchayat/Anchalik Panchayat Presidents as members of the selection commi ttee. As to in what manner and with which members, the selection committee is to be constituted, is within the domain and jurisdiction of the concerned authorit y and unless it is shown that such constitution is founded on any malafide and/o r colourable exercise of power, the writ Court exercising the power of review un der Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal so as to inter fere with the very constitution of the selection committee. As noted above, the participants and/or candidates for the post of Anganwadi Wor kers/Helpers are not before this Court. No grievance has been made against the c onstitution of the selection committee by any of the candidates, who appeared in the selection. The selected candidates are also not made party respondents in t his proceeding. However, some of the selected candidates have got themselves imp leaded in this proceeding. The decision, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed relian ce i.e. Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad (supra) is of no help to the case of the petitioners. The emphasis on local-self Government cannot cloth the petition ers with any right to become the members of the particular selection committee. As regards the allegation made against the Respondent No.6 that, because, penden cy of the criminal case against him, he could not have been made the member of t he selection committee, in absence of any material to show that he has been conv icted in the alleged offence, it is difficult for this Court to accept the said submission. Even in the matter of promotion, mere filing of an FIR cannot lead to deprivation of promotion to a Government officer. It is only when a charge m emo in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued, it can be said that the departmental proceeding/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. It is only then the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to and not otherwise. In the instant case, nothing has been shown t hat the Respondent No.6 has even been charge sheeted. (Refer AIR 1991 SC 2010 Un ion of India v. Jankiraman) For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders stand vacated . The respondents shall now prosecute the matter in accordance with law.