Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Shamshada Akhter & Anr vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 20 December, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No.13
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No.597/2020
SHAMSHADA AKHTER & ANR. ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mubashir Majid Malik, Dy. AG-for R1 to R6.
Mr. I. Sofi, Advocate-for R7.
None for R8.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
20.12.2024
1) The petitioners have challenged order dated
31.12.2019 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy
Commissioner, Kupwara, whereby the appeal filed by
respondent No.8 against the engagement of respondent
No.7 as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre, Gogree
Mohalla, Kultura District Kupwara, has been dismissed.
The petitioners have sought a further direction for their
engagement as Anganwadi Workers for the aforesaid Centre
strictly in accordance with the merit framed by the
Selection Committee.
2) The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties
are that a post of Anganwadi Worker had become available
Page |2
due to resignation of Anganwadi Worker of Anganwadi
Centre, Gogree Mohalla, Kultura and, accordingly, vide
advertisement notice No.ICDS/Lgt/Estt/15/1480-1482
dated 28.12.2015, issued by respondent No.6, applications
were invited for filling up of the said post from amongst the
eligible candidates.
3) It seems that the petitioners as well as private
respondent Nos.7 and 8 responded to the aforesaid
advertisement notice, whereafter selection process was
undertaken by the official respondents. It also appears that
as per the merit list prepared by the official respondents,
petitioner No.1 had obtained 62.70 points, petitioner No.2
had obtained 72.41 points, private respondent No.7 had
obtained 40.62 points whereas private respondent No.8 had
obtained 38.75 points.
4) Certain complaints were received by the official
respondents with regard to the provisional select list and
after considering the same, it was found that only private
respondent Nos.7 and 8 are eligible for being engaged and
all other candidates including the petitioners herein were
held ineligible. Thereafter the official respondents issued an
engagement order in favour of respondent No.7 who was the
most meritorious candidate amongst the eligible
candidates. Aggrieved of this engagement order, respondent
Page |3
No.8 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner,
Kupwara, which came to be dismissed in terms of
impugned order dated 31.12.2019.
5) The petitioners have challenged the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the
petitioners are inhabitants of the hamlet where the
Anganwadi Centre was functioning, as such, their
candidature could not have been rejected by the official
respondents. It has been contended that the petitioners are
more meritorious than the private respondents, therefore,
they were entitled to be selected but the official respondents
have, in violation of the right of equality as guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution, shown favouritism to
respondent No.7.
6) The official respondents, in their reply, have
submitted that after conducting the interview on
19.02.2016, certain complaints with regard to residence of
the petitioners and some other candidates were received by
the Selection Committee. In order to ascertain veracity of
these complaints, a Verification Committee was constituted
on 02.03.2016. Upon receipt of the report of the Verification
Committee, it was found that out of nine candidates, only
two candidates, i.e. private respondent Nos.7 and 8, were
eligible as per the norms. Accordingly, based upon the
Page |4
verification report and the norms, respondent No.7, who
was the most meritorious candidate amongst the eligible
candidates, was engaged as Anganwadi Worker on
11.05.2016.
7) Private respondent No.7, in her reply to the writ
petition, has contended that the petitioners are not the
residents of Village Kultura but are the residents of Village
Kuhru, therefore, they were not eligible to participate in the
selection process. It has been further submitted that
petitioner No.1 has challenged the selection of respondent
No.7 belatedly by filing the instant petition after four years
of her engagement whereas the previous writ petition filed
by petitioner No.2 was dismissed by this court in terms of
judgment dated 05.09.2022 passed in SWP No.1063/2016.
8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case.
9) So far as the case of petitioner No.2 is concerned, she
had challenged the selection of private respondent No.7 by
way of another writ petition bearing SWP No.1063/2016.
The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by a
detailed order dated 05.09.2022, wherein it was held that
the said petitioner was less than 18 years of age on the first
day of calendar year in which the selection was made and,
Page |5
as such, she was not eligible to participate in the selection
process. It is not the case of petitioner No.2 that the said
order of this Court has been set aside or varied by any
superior forum. Therefore, it is not open to petitioner No.1
to re-agitate the same issue before a Coordinate Bench of
this Court. On this ground alone, the claim of petitioner
No.2 is liable to be rejected.
10) That takes us to the case of petitioner No.1. As per the
stand of the official respondents, petitioner No.1 was not a
resident of Village Kultura and she was not residing in the
hamlet Gogree Mohalla where the Anganwadi Centre is
located. It is an admitted case of the parties that as per the
norms for selection of Anganwadi Workers issued by
Government vide Order No.07-SW of 2010 dated
18.01.2010, which was in vogue at the relevant time, a
candidate for selection as Anganwadi Worker must belong
to the hamlet where the Anganwadi Centre is located and
it is only if the suitable candidate is not available in that
hamlet, the candidate may be selected from the Revenue
Village of which the said hamlet is a part or from a nearby
Revenue Village. Petitioner No.1 has not produced on record
even a single document to controvert the contention of the
respondents that she does not belong to Village Kultura
hamlet Gogree Mohalla. Petitioner No.1 does not dispute
Page |6
the residential status of respondent No.7, the selected
candidate. The petitioners have placed on record the
documents which, prima facie, show that petitioner No.2
was resident of Village Kultura at the relevant time but
there is not even a single document to this effect so far as
petitioner No.1 is concerned. Thus, in the absence of any
material on record to show that petitioner No.1 belonged to
hamlet where the Anganwadi Centre is located, her claim
cannot be accepted.
11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in
the petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim
direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
20.12.2024
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
23.12.2024 10:25
[ad_1]
Source link