WP(C) 2231/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mr. M. A. Seikh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well as Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. I have also h eard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Additional Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State res pondents. The challenge made in this writ petition is the order (Annexure-11) date d 30.4.2009, by which the Director of Social Welfare, Assam issued direction to the Child Development Officer(CDPO), Matia ICDS Project to terminate the volunta ry services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in respect of No.202 Suterpara Phulnoi Parghat Anganwadi Centre under Matia ICDS Project and to appoint the se cond nominee i.e. the respondent No.6. Presently, the petitioner is continuing h er voluntary service of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the interim order passed by this court. While the case of the petitioner is that she is the resident of No.202 S uterpara Phulnoi Parghat Anganwadi Centre, it is the case of the respondent No.6 and the official respondents that she is not the resident of said centre but a resident of outside and her name along with the family members has been included in the survey register of Suterpara(Ka), Anganwadi Centre No.73. In this connec tion the respondent No.6 has placed reliance on Annexure R(3) (inquiry report) f urnished by the Programme Officer, Divisional ICDS Cell, Kamrup which is reprod uced herein-below : ENQUIRY REPORT OF Suterpara Phulnoi Parghat A.W.C NO.202 under Matia ICDS Projec t. DIST : GOALPARA Public Complain against selected A.W.W. Smti. Sakila Khatun that she is not a resident of the center area. Findings : On my visit to the center area on 4/12/2007, I found that tho ugh Smti. Sakila Khatun a resident of Suterpara village was selected and engaged as A.W.W at Suterpara Phulnoi Parghat A.W.C. No.202, her family had been includ ed in the survey register of Suterpara (Ka) A.W.C No.73 running at own building situated in the campus of Suterpara L.P.School. Moreover, there are two A.W.C set up earlier in the Suterpara village co vering other parts of the village. The nearly set up AWC No.202 is to cover the area Phulnoi Parghat. Smt. Sakila Khatun has to cross the above two old A.W.C to attend her du ty at Phulnoi Parghat. The office of the C.D.P.O Matia ICDS project did not pay any heed to scrutinise the applications submitted for the post of A.W.W of cente r in question. Hence, an outsider was allowed to face the interview as well as s elected by not only depriving the center area candidates but also ignored the ba sic norms for selection of a local candidate for proper function of the center, moreover, the Selection Committee also without any checking selected a candidate of outside the center area. Hence, it would be proper and just to remove Smti. Sakila Khatun from th e post of A.W.W as outsider and approve the name of the candidate who secured hi ghest marks among the local candidates Smti Sahera Siddiqua, wife of Abdul Kalam Mandal, for the post of AWW of AWC No.202. -Sd- Programme Officer Divisional ICDS Cell, Kamrup. As per the impugned order also, the petitioner could not substantiate he r claim that she is a resident of No.202 Suterpara Phulnoi Parghat Anganwadi Cen tre under Matia ICDS Project. From the materials on record it appears that the respondent No.6 had als o filed WP(C) No.6018 of 2007 making a challenge to the appointment of the prese nt petitioner on the ground that she being a resident of outside the Centre in q uestion, she could not have been selected and appointed as Anganwadi worker for the particular centre. The said writ petition has been disposed of along with a batch of writ petitions by judgment and order dated 10.12.2009 directing the aut horities to constitute an appropriate Committee to carry out necessary inquiry a mongst others regarding the residence of the appointees. In the aforesaid batch of cases including the case of writ petitioner the allegation was that some of t he selected candidates were from outside the particular Anganwadi Centre for whi ch the selection was made. As per the aforesaid order dated 10.1.22009, the Comm ittee to be constituted by the appropriate authority is to look into various asp ects of the matter including the grievance that some of the selected candidates have been appointed in the particular centres although, they are not residents o f the said centres. Since the writ petition filed by the respondent No.6 has been disposed a long with aforesaid batch of writ petitions, the said order would govern the ins tant case also. The Committee considering the grievance of the petitioner vis-à- vis respondent No.6 shall take into account the stand of the departmental author ities and the Inquiry report furnished by the Programme Officer in which it has been contended that the writ petitioner is not a resident of the aforesaid Angan wadi Centre. Writ petition is disposed of. Since the writ petition stand finally disposed by this order, the interi m order passed on 8.6.2009 shall not stand on the way of the respondents to deci de the matter in accordance with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgm ent and order dated 10.12.2009.