WP(C) 4306/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. I have also heard Mrs. M. Bordoloi and Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.6. The petitioners, numbering 10 (ten), have filed this writ petition chall enging the Annexure-1 advertisement dated 5.9.2009, by which the applications ha d been invited for appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in respect of the An ganwadi centers mentioned therein. The petitioners have also prayed for a direc tion to the respondents to allot the Anganwadi centers strictly in terms of the norms fixed for the purpose. According to the petitioners, the advertisement was issued for Anganwadi Workers/Helpers for the Anganwadi centres without adhering to the norms fixed f or creation of Anganwadi centres. In paragraph-11 of the writ petition, the foll owing statements have been made:- 11. That the petitioners are aggrieved by the allotment of new centres inasm uch the same is discriminatory and the same has affected the prospects of the ap pointment of the petitioners as Anganwadi workers and helpers even though as per the norms their villages ought to have been allotted new centres, which would h ave made the petitioners eligible to participate in terms of the advertisement. On perusal of the aforesaid statements, what is seen is that according to the pe titioners, their prospects of being appointed as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers h ave been affected with the creation of Anganwadi centres, which according to the m, have been so created without adhering to the norms. In this connection, Mr. D utta, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the Ap ex Court reported in (2007) 1 SCC 719 (People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Uni on of India & Ors), in which the Apex Court dealing with the implementation of t he direction given by the Court relating to the Integrated Child Development Sch eme (in short ’I.C.D.S’) observed that for ensuring the population norms for ope ning of Anganwadi Centres (AWCs), the upper limit of population norm of one AWC per 1000 population and considering minimum of one AWC per 300 population. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the stand taken by th e petitioners. In paragraph-4 of the said counter affidavit, the respondents hav e dealt with the residential status of each and every one of the petitioners. A ccording to the respondents, the petitioners being inhabitants of their respect ive villages indicated in the said paragraph, were entitled to offer their candi dature in respect of the Anganwadi centres mentioned in the employment notice. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated thus :- 7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 8 and 18 of the wri t petition, the deponent begs to state that the State Government to extend the s ervices of ICDS scheme into the uncovered rural and slum areas and urban areas o f the State made a public notice on 6.8.2007 which was published on 11.8.2007 in an Assamese daily (Dainik Batori) and in the ’The Assam Tribune’ asking to subm it proposal with the signature of minimum of 15 nos. of parents/guardians of the areas which have at least 40 children but without Anganwadi Centre. That after publication of the said public notice, many applications were received from the public and after due verification, proposals have been submit ted to the State Government through the department and to the Govt. of India for sanction of the same. On the basis of those proposals 101 additional Anganwadi centres have been sanctioned by the Govt. of India in the third phase of expans ion. But the petitioners did not make any application/demand or submitted any pr oposal for sanction of an additional Anganwadi center for that area. Further, the Ministry of Women and Child Development to the Govt. of Ind ia vide letter dated 29.5.2000 has issued a guideline on ’Anganwadi Centre on De mand’ that the rural communities and slum dwellers should be entitled to an ’Ang alwadi Centre on Demand’. Thus, from the above, it is seen that a public notice was issued on 6.8.2007, wh ich was also published on 11.8.2007 in two local newspapers. By the said notice , the proposal was called for creation of Anganwadi centres. After publication of the notice, many applications were received from the public and after due ver ification, the proposal was submitted to the State Government through the depar tment and also to the Government of India for sanctioning the same. On the basis of such an exercise, 101 additional Angaanwadi centres have been sanctioned by the Government of India in the third phase of expansion. The petitioners never participated in this process and now, filed the instant writ petition claiming violation of the norms in creating the additional Anganwadi centres. In response to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioners h ave filed a reply affidavit, in which the elaborate stand of the respondents in paragraphs 4 and 7 have been dealt with as follows :- 6. That, the statements made in 3rd and 4th sub para in paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition are also not correct. The statement that the Bamunirbhit a village is affected by erosion is not true and the Secretary of the Gaon Panch ayat has issued a certificate to that effect. So far as Takimari Part-III center is concerned to the knowledge of the petitioner no such centre in the name of T akimari Part-III exists. 7. That, the statements made in 5th sub para in paragraph 4 of the affidavi t-in- opposition are also not correct, the deponent states that the particular w ard is not adequately represented and the petitioners do not admit anything beyo nd record. 10. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in- o pposition, the deponent states that the formation of the Anganwadi center cannot be arbitrarily made. The norms prescribed have to be followed and response to the advertisement is not the only criteria for grant of Anganwadi centre. The statements made in 2nd sub para in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in- opposition are also not fully correct. The petitioners also submitted some propo sal for sanction of some additional Anganwadi centre for that area. The exercise which is involved towards creation of additional Anganwadi centres is a task primarily vested with the authority and this Court in absence of any e xpertise cannot deal with the issue on the basis of any explanation, more so, wh en the petitioners have not been able to show anything, which can be stated to b e an arbitrary exercise of power. In paragraphs 4 and 7 of the counter affidavi t, the respondents have dealt with the matter elaborately as to the reaction of the petitioner to the said paragraphs have been indicated above. The petitioners never made any grievance towards creation of additional Anganwad i centres and they filed the instant writ petition when the advertisement was is sued after two years of creation of Anganwadi centres. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ peti tion and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order passed on 8.10.2009 sta nds vacated.