WP(C) 1259/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. P hukan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7. I have also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6. Ms R. Chakrabort y, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate has made submissions on behalf of the offici al respondents. 2. The matter relates to appointment of Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre called Kulapathar Kankan Nagar Anganwadi Centre. 3. In response to the Annexure-1 Employment Notice dated 8.3.2007 for the p ost, the petitioner along with the Respondent No.7 and others, offered her candi dature. Thereafter, due selection was conducted and on the basis of selection, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker for the said centre vide Annexu re-2 letter dated 13.7.2007. Thereafter, by Annexure-6 letter dated 5.3.2008, d irection was issued for termination of services of the petitioner. The letter re ferred to public complaint and the enquiry conducted thereafter. As per the sai d letter, the inhabitants of the center is mainly ST and the percentage of ST po pulation is about 70%. By Annexure-7 letter dated 19.3.2008, the Child Developm ent Project Officer, ICDS Project, Dhemaji, under which the particular Anganwadi Centre falls, terminated the services of the petitioner pursuant to the Annexur e-6 letter dated 5.3.2008. In her place, the Respondent No.7, who is a ST catego ry candidate, has been appointed. 4. The writ petition has been filed on two-fold ground. Firstly, the appoin tment of the petitioner could not have been cancelled without affording her reas onable opportunity of being heard and secondly, there being no indication in the advertisement that the post is exclusively reserved for ST category candidate, the authority could not have terminated the services of the petitioner on that ground. Be it stated here that the petitioner belongs to O.B.C. 5. As against the aforesaid case of the petitioner, it is the stand of the respondents that although in the selection conducted, the petitioner had secure d first position and the Respondent No.7 secured second position, but due to pol icy decision of the Government to appoint the ST category candidate in the cente rs of SC/ST population, which is 40% and above, it is the Respondent No.7, who ought to have been preferred above the petitioner. In this connection, the Respo ndent No.7 has annexed the policy decision of the Government issued vide notific ation dated 5/12.3.2007. As per the said notification, for the Anganwadi Centres located in the village/villages/locality having SC/ST population of 40% or more of the total population, the Anganwadi Workers shall be selected from amongst t he SC/ST category candidates. 6. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, while highlighting the above pleas of the petitioner, also submits that had the advertisement been specific that post is exclusively reserved for ST category candidate, some mor e ST category candidates would have applied for the post. According to him, by appointing the Respondent No.7, other eligible ST category candidates have been deprived of being considered. 7. Both Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel and Mr. K.K. Phukan, learn ed counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7, on the other hand, submit that the mistake was committed by the authority towards appointment of the petitioner, w hich has been rectified by issuing appointment order in favour of the Respondent No. 7. They have submitted that when it is the disclosed policy decision of the Government to appoint SC/ST category candidate in SC/ST populated area (40% and above), the petitioner could not have been appointed she being an OBC candidate . Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 submits that pursuant to the order of appointment, the Respondent No.7 has joined the post and she has be en continuing as Anganwadi Worker. 8. Mr. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6, on the other hand, submits that the enquiry conducted has revealed that the total po pulation of the area is ST dominated and out of total population 437, the number of ST population is 301, which is about 70%. As per the report, another survey report conducted depicts that the ST population is about 73%. The report has f urther revealed that a complaint was lodged by one Binod Mili and 52 others to t he effect that as a suitable ST (Mishing) community candidate i.e. the Responden t No.7 was available, as per the policy decision of the Government, the authorit y should have appointed her instead of appointing a non-ST category candidate i. e. the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record including the report produced by Mr. Handiqu e, learned counsel for the Respondent No.6. The Employment Notice was issued on 8.3.2007 and the last date of submitting applications was fixed as 21.3.2007. W ithin this target date, the Government in the Social Welfare Department issued t he notification 5/12.3.2007, inter alia, notifying that for the Anganwadi Centre s located in the village/villages/locality having SC/ST population of 40% or mor e of the total population, the Anganwadi Worker/Anganwadi Helper shall be select ed from amongst the SC/ST category candidates. It is true that in the advertise ment, the stipulation was not depicted. However, the Employment Notice having be en issued on 8.3.2007 and the policy decision of the government having been issu ed vide notification dated 5/12.3.2007, the selection committee could not have b een oblivious of the stipulation so made. 10. As regards the plea of the petitioner that her services could not have b een terminated in violation of the principles of natural justice, suffice is to say that the Anganwadi Workers do not hold any post but they render voluntary o r honorary service on payment of honorarium of Rs.1000/- only. Further, the pet itioner has been heard on that point. As regards the plea of the petitioner tha t had it been made known in the advertisement that the post is exclusively rese rved for ST category candidates, there would have been more candidatures from ot her eligible ST category candidates. Such plea of the petitioner cannot be ac cepted in view of the fact that no other ST category candidate has challenged th e appointment of the Respondent No.7 on that ground. The petitioner will have to make out her own case instead of harping on the case of other. As per the p olicy decision of the Government, she being an OBC category candidate, was not e ligible for appointment. 11. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in the advert isement, there being no stipulation regarding the post being exclusively reserve d for ST category candidate, the petitioner duly responded to the advertisement and she secured first position in the select list, while the Respondent No.7 sec ured second position. On being appointed, a hope was generated in the mind of th e petitioner that her services would not come to an end in view of the aforesaid policy decision of the Government. 12. In view of the above, while not interfering with the appointment of the Respondent No.7 as Anganwadi Worker in the particular center, it is hereby provi ded that the respondents may consider feasibility of appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, more particularly, in view of the fact that she secured the first position in the selection. 13. Writ petition is disposed of.